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 ...
I'm not saying that it WAS a sub launched missile. I said that it was possible. I also said it could have been DRONE. It could have been a missile launched from a SHIP, or a decent sized boat (like the 50 foot or larger boats the drug runners use. Like the one that SPED out to sea right after the explosion of TWA800). It could have been a missile launched from the shore somewhere.
Did they say why?
Despite your turning it into an issue of Einsteinian complexity, firing an AA missile from a vertical torpedo tube and guiding it from the Aegis system is not only not impossible, I doubt it's even very different from firing the missile from a missile ship. What's much harder is reasonably explaining hundreds of eye witness accounts that describe just that.
Believe what you want, I don't really care.
The people in the top administrative positions of the Federal government do not plan military exercises, the generals and admirals do. And it goes back to the question of how stupid do you think they are if they would deliberately shoot missiles into the civilian traffic going into and out of New York?
And I'm trying to show that it wasn't possible because such a weapon does not exist and makes no sense at all.
I'm not saying that it WAS a sub launched missile. I said that it was possible. I also said it could have been DRONE. It could have been a missile launched from a SHIP, or a decent sized boat (like the 50 foot or larger boats the drug runners use. Like the one that SPED out to sea right after the explosion of TWA800). It could have been a missile launched from the shore somewhere.
Or maybe it was an exploding fuel tank.
Let me ask you this. Does the Navy have 'command and control' systems that allow one SHIP to fire a missile and the 'control' or guidance to target to come from another ship, or an aircraft (like an AWACS) ?
IIRC, that is part of the way an AEGIS system works.
You mean you don't know?
I've been out of the service for over 10 years so I can't speak to what's happened since then. But nothing like that existed in the 1990s. I've heard reports that features like that may have been developed for aircraft but I don't see where they would be of use on a ship, much less a sub.
Sample:
There’s the rub. In 21st-century America, we have created a perverse incentive structure where fear of accusations of Islamophobia and/or racism takes priority over anything else, even preventing violence. While nobody could have foreseen the exact attack that Omar Mateen perpetrated, it’s abundantly clear that he was on track to do something awful, including murder. Yet nothing was done, even though warnings were abundant. Simply put, any American today who is accused of Islamophobia faces a ruined life with loss of employment and social stigma. Whereas the cost of not preventing mass murder is merely hurt feelings and regret.
You don’t get a pass by calling the other opponent a “conspiracy theorist.” You have to refute the evidence.
...
Impossible. Any successful rebuttal is simply dismissed as part of the conspiracy.
Aircraft Mechanics do not do shoddy work.
...
Here’s a perfect example of a mechanic doing shoddy work. Must be part of the conspiracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Midwest_Flight_5481
It's possible. Why then did the CIA get involved ? Why did the FBI take over and keep out the NTSB ?
Well we won't know that until you've delivered a successful rebuttal.
I would say get to it.
How do you 'know' they weren't using drones ?
It is an example of a mechanic working on an aircraft without proper training on that aircraft.
For all we know, his work was excellent. He may have set the cable tension perfectly, but for a different sort of airplane.
No authoritative account of the crash has said that they were.
LOL!
or a bona fide SAM, rigged on a boat. Fire the missile and scuttle the boat. I recall reading about a “large” pleasure boat that went missing that day.
TWA 800: How the CIA Hijacked the FBI Investigation
“After interviewing 144 witnesses, the FBI missile team insisted there was a “high probability” that a surface-to-air missile destroyed the airplane”
Yes, but I was letting you have the opportunity to show us how much you know.
I've been out of the service for over 10 years so I can't speak to what's happened since then.
Fair enough.
But nothing like that existed in the 1990s.
"Aegis was initially developed by the Missile and Surface Radar Division of RCA, which was later acquired by General Electric. The division responsible for the Aegis systems became Government Electronic Systems. This, and other GE Aerospace businesses, were sold to Martin Marietta in 1992.[7] This became part of Lockheed Martin in 1995.
Large screen displays on USS Vincennes, typical of early Aegis platforms 1988 By the late 1950s, the U.S. Navy replaced guns with guided missiles on its ships. These were sufficient weapons but by the late 1960s, the U.S. Navy recognized that reaction time, firepower, and operational availability in all environments did not match the anti-ship missile threat.[citation needed] The new threat of Soviet anti-ship missiles exposed a weakness in contemporary naval radar. The requirements of both tracking and targeting these missiles was limited by the number of radars on each ship, which was typically 2–4. In 1958 the navy started the Typhon Combat System, a prophetic program culminated in the futuristic, but unreliable AN/SPG-59 phased array radar which was never made viable and was canceled in 1963 to be replaced by the Advanced Surface Missile System (ASMS).[8]
As a result, the US Navy decided to develop a program to defend ships from anti-ship missile threats. An Advanced Surface Missile System (ASMS) was promulgated and an engineering development program was initiated in 1964 to meet the requirements.[9] ASMS was renamed "Aegis" in December 1969 after the aegis, the shield of the Greek god Zeus. The name was invented at the suggestion of Captain L. J. Stecher, a former Tartar Weapon System manager, after an internal U.S. Navy contest to name the ASMS program was initiated. Captain Stecher also submitted a possible acronym of Advanced Electronic Guided Interceptor System although this definition was never used.[10] The main manufacturer of the Aegis Combat System, Lockheed Martin, makes no mention of the name Aegis being an acronym, nor does the U.S. Navy.
Because the Aegis Combat System is the key component of several cruiser and destroyer class vessels, the ships are often incorrectly referred to as "Aegis class cruisers" or "Aegis class destroyers". In reality, the radar system and the class of ship it is installed on are unrelated to each other.
Large screen displays on USS John S. McCain, circa 1997. Destroyers have two displays while cruisers have four. The first Engineering Development Model (EDM-1) was installed in a test ship, the USS Norton Sound, in 1973.[11] During this time frame, the Navy envisioned installing the Aegis Combat System on both a nuclear-powered "Strike Cruiser" (or CSGN) and a conventionally powered destroyer (originally designated DDG 47). The CSGN was to be a new, 17,200 ton cruiser design based on the earlier California and Virginia-class cruisers. The Aegis destroyer design would be based on the gas turbine powered Spruance class. When the CSGN was cancelled, the Navy proposed a modified Virginia class design (CGN 42) with a new superstructure designed for the Aegis Combat System and with a displacement of 12,100 tons. As compared to the CSGN, this design was not as survivable and had reduced command and control facilities for an embarked flag officer. Ultimately this design was also cancelled during the Carter Administration due to its increased cost compared to the non-nuclear DDG 47. With the cancellation of the CGN 42, the DDG 47 Aegis destroyer was redesignated as CG 47, a guided missile cruiser.
The first cruiser of this class was USS Ticonderoga, which used two twin-armed Mark-26 missile launchers, fore and aft. The commissioning of the sixth ship of the class, USS Bunker Hill opened a new era in surface warfare as the first Aegis ship outfitted with the Martin Marietta Mark-41 Vertical Launching System (VLS), allowing a wider missile selection, more firepower, and survivability. The improved AN/SPY-1B radar went to sea in USS Princeton, ushering in another advance in Aegis capabilities. USS Chosin introduced the AN/UYK-43/44 computers, which provide increased processing capabilities.
During 1980, a destroyer was designed using an improved sea-keeping hull form, reduced infrared and radar cross-sections, and upgrades to the Aegis Combat System. The first ship of the Arleigh Burke class, USS Arleigh Burke, was commissioned during 1991.
Flight II of the Arleigh Burke class, introduced in 1992, incorporated improvements to the SPY radar, and to the Standard missile, active electronic countermeasures, and communications. Flight IIA, introduced in 2000, added a helicopter hangar with one anti-submarine helicopter and one armed attack helicopter. The Aegis program has also projected reducing the cost of each Flight IIA ship by at least $30 million."
(source:
Wouldn't that be obvious ?
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.