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 ...
And what is that supposed to be?
Leaving aside for a moment that there wasn't a live fire exercise going on in the area, I find the idea that you could think that the U.S. military is that stupid to be mildly surprising. Only mildly; I admit I've seen worse around there.
Your imagination is impressive. I suppose it’s useless to point out that none of those surface-to-air missiles were German navy? And no sub-surface to air missiles are mentioned.
Submarines are protected by stealth. Stick the top part of your island above water and you've told every enemy resource with a radar exactly where you are. Stick up a mast and operate your own radar and you've told every enemy resource with electronic countermeasures exactly where you are. Fire a missile blindly into the air in the hopes of hitting an airplane somewhere and you've told every enemy resource with an eyeball exactly where you are. In any case the weapon you are trying to convince us exists does nothing to protect the submarine and would, in fact, make it a sitting duck itself.
Neat graphics though.
Missiles make noise when they’re launched. Enough of the crew will hear no matter the time of the day to make it difficult to cover up. Been there, heard that.
No you *&%$, I know someone who has first hand and very precise knowledge of what happened. He told me what happened.
I don't have to hunt around for theories because I have facts at my disposal that you don't have. Unfortunately I cannot even hint at what those facts are because the person who related them to me fears retaliation if this information becomes known to the general public.
The plane was hit by a surface to air missile fired from a boat by supposedly rogue Iranians. That much I can say because there is no way to trace that information back to anywhere. People can assert that claim comes from the tin-foil-hat conspiracy kooks, and no real rebuttal is necessary.
All of the NTSB stuff is just security drama for public consumption because the truth would instill outrage and would have instilled panic back in 1996.
Oh, and Bill Clinton would have lost the election.
If you believe there was an 80 joule ignition source in the fuel tanks, you are simply swallowing a line of crap that is unsupportable by facts.
No you *&%$, I know someone who has first hand and very precise knowledge of what happened. He told me what happened.
...
Great. You’re another conspiracy nut filled with hearsay from an unnamed source.
I did read that. I believe that it is falsified in order to produce the cause specified by the Clinton administration. The voltages supplied to sensors and the current availability is too low to produce arcing. (I design sensor systems)
What could possibly be so secret about a non-nuclear anti-aircraft missile that there's no trace of its existence on the internet (unlike say nuclear Tomahawks the attack subs can carry or ballistic missiles the boomers carry)?
It was so secret that even I, as a submarine veteran at the time of TWA 800's demise, didn't know about it. We were trained to carry the nuclear tomahawk. Everyone onboard a sub has at least a secret clearance, including the cooks. But they'd keep this defensive weapon somewhere above Top Secret?
Can you see this from my perspective? There are a handful of people posting that US Navy submarine shot down flight 800 who clearly know nothing about submarines. I kind of want to know a few details.
You do not read carefully. I did not say that WWII German missiles were used in the TWA800 incident. I said that if the Germans had such missiles in WWII that we surly have such missiles now. I also clearly stated that the Germans did not deploy those because they were never perfected. That was in response to someone saying that a sub couldn't shoot down an airplane. I didn't even say there were submarines in the area that could have done that. I merely stated that the capability surely exists.
I did read that. I believe that it is falsified in order to produce the cause specified by the Clinton administration.
...
So that puts you in the conspiracy camp, too. It’s convenient because any evidence presented to you can simply be dismissed as a lie.
And I pointed out that your source did not say that Germany had a subsurface-to-air missile during World War II. Nor has any other source I Googled mentioned such a system.
But you say that the capability exists. How would it work? How would the the submarine target the missile? I admit I'm curious because in all my many years in the CAF involved in ASW I never heard anything about such a weapon from any country.
I know the name of the source. That person is a very respectable source and would be taken very seriously if that person were willing to come forward and say what that person knows and how they know it.
But that person is not willing to cut their own throat and I do not blame them.
It does not bother me at all for people to think I am a "conspiracy" nut. It is exactly what I expected anyway.
But do you know what is actually nutty? Believing aircraft fuel tanks explode in mid air from 80 joule ignition sources inside them.
I have personal experience with blame being shifted to sensor systems while the real cause was something else entirely. It is common practice to protect the "big guy" at the expense of the "little guy".
It does not bother me at all for people to think I am a “conspiracy” nut.
...
Good, because you keep providing evidence for it.
It seems like you think integrating a new weapon system into military computers is as easy as downloading Microsoft Office onto your PC. If that was the case, why can't the F-22 Raptor fire the AIM-9X when it can fire the AIM-9M? Why didn't the F-14 Tomcat ever get the capability to fire the AIM-120?
I mean those are just minor upgrades to existing capabilities, yet the cost of the software upgrades was just too great. Now you're talking about integrating an entirely new capability into the submarine's Combat Control System.
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?
I'm not arguing the point of whether or not it was a missile that shot down TWA 800. My argument was that it wasn't a submarine as our submarines do not have that capability.
You have given absolutely no compelling evidence that a submarine did this. By your own admission, even if they managed to install this above Top Secret missile on the submarine--which isn't so secret that they don't mind firing it during routine exercises--it still needs a surface ship to guide the missile. Why not just launch it from the surface ship in the first place? That technology exists.
The Clintons are rotten. I don’t trust political leaders. I believe your sensor systems are wonderful. Even though it’s rare, fuel tanks do explode.
The NTSB investigated this thoroughly and involved many smart people outside of government. And best of all they committed all of their findings to writing with named sources. It’s not a case of “my friend says”, “my dad says”, “my acquaintance says”, “the guy at the urinal next to me says”, “a really smart guy I can’t name says”.
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.
I asked you for information about American systems the last time you posted that artist's rendering of a foreign system. You ignored me.
FYI I'm a submarine veteran that was in during the time of the TWA 800 loss. We don't have anti-aircraft capabilities on submarines.
I'm guessing it's a picture of a Chinese submarine firing some type of missile.
Not sure what that has to do with proving that American submarines can fire anti-aircraft missiles.
It does seem that everyone can be a casualty of some sort under a Clinton administration. Once truth is a casualty, almost nothing can be resolved satisfactorily. What a pity.
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.