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 ...
Most interesting, thanks for the link. It seems whistleblowers did in fact step up to the plate, but were ignored, and always will be by the DBM.(and some shills even here)
He should have foreseen how easy such an accident might be, without having... significant... backup.
There are many theories, many explanations, many lies amongst the info on TWA800.
The ones I presented MAY be true. May not. BUT, the information is there. Information that contradicts the ‘official’ explanation.
The lack of physical evidence discounts many of the theories, including the CWT theory and the Missile theory.
I tend to take all the various theories and news articles and sift through the wheat and the chaff. I admit I am biased and easily favor the idea that the ‘government/military/defense contractor’ establishment is lying to us, because we keep catching them lying.
If it was a coverup by the Clintons, then that would help explain why there might be trolls still alive and well 24 years laters.
I don’t think anyone here is a paid troll. I just think there are people here that are closed minded. Smart people. Experienced people. Knowledgeable in one or multiple areas, but for some reason they decided they KNOW what happened and there is no changing their mind. I am closed minded in a way in that I refuse to believe the official version at all. And like others, I have info that came from a reliable source that I believe is ‘proof’ the government lied.
Like the Hillary emails, if the truth came out on this (assuming it was a coverup) ALL OF THEM (government leadership) would be in trouble. So, the truth may not be revealed in our lifetime.
Like you , and even those that disagree with us, we each have our ‘idea’ of what happened and we’ll probably have to just settle for that.
Occam... always in a big hurry.
TWA 800 was destroyed in 1996. In 1996, I was in the navy in the submarine service. We did not have anti-aircraft capability onboard submarines then, and I'm pretty sure we still do not now.
Maybe, but if I am, I don't even know it.
I have no doubt if the navy deemed an anti-aircraft system needed to be installed on submarines, then a system would be created. So yes, I believe it is possible.
Why it's improbable is that a submarine either hides from aircraft or destroys the ship that launches the aircraft. From a cost vs benefit perspective, it's obvious that the navy did not consider this to be of much benefit.
It is quite difficult to find a submarine that doesn't want to be found. The most effective way is through sonar. Active sonar will be heard by the submarine at least twice the distance of the return range, making it easy to avoid. Passive sonar cannot be detected by the submarine, but the aircraft has to be in the right place at the right time, and it's a huge ocean. And even then, modern nuclear subs emit less noise than the natural background of the ocean unless they're travelling at high rates of speed.
"On display, according to Graduate’s source, was a secret anti-aircraft missile developed for the Seawolf class of attack submarines. The Navy planned to use the missile to defend the subs when sailing ahead of the fleet without air cover, especially in shallow water when vulnerable to shore-based defenses. "
I don't even know where to begin with this link. I would be here all day going line by line. Maybe I can come back to this later. I do especially like the "swivel-tube concept" part.
I want to be clear. I am not locked onto the Submarine missile theory. I just don't believe it was the Center Wing Tank that was the source of the problem. That leaves all the other options, and that is what I am exploring. I do appreciate your input.
You already know my opinion on the likelihood of a submarine being capable of doing this and if any navy asset did launch the missile, my opinion of a successful cover up. So I won't repeat myself.
For the record, I am skeptical of the official story. I find it very hard to believe, as did my father. He started off as a mechanic in the USAF and retired as an aircraft maintenance manager at JFK. His specialty was 747s. But the more I read, the more I tend to think that perhaps it was simply a CWT explosion. Believe me though, if any alternate explanation made sense to me, I'd be onboard. I just don't see that yet.
Why wouldn't the other ships in the fleet just shoot instead?
It didn't say it wasn't controlled, it said the sub no longer controlled it. Control may have passed to same 'ships' that fed it the info on which way to 'point' the missile.
It said that a second ship was needed as a backstop in case the missile took off. That doesn't sound like control to me.
As I said, the sub missile theory is just one of those that COULD be true.
And as I've said such a weapon makes no sense. A submarine's best protection is stealth. Anything that hinders that stealth endangers the submarine. Using active sonar, sticking a mast up and using radar, shooting a missile where enemy aircraft are around all give away the position of the submarine and work more to the benefit of the hunters than the hunted.
That leaves the other possibilities. Other than a sub fired missile, do you believe it could have been a missile launched from somewhere else ? A drone ?
I doubt a drone. Anything that large that hit the airplane would have left debris behind with the rest of the wreckage. As for a shoulder fired missile of some sort, I have no idea. I was air force and not army, so my knowledge on missiles like Blowpipe or Stinger is rudimentary at best. So in closing I will say that have no idea what did cause the airplane to blow up, be it fuel tank or bomb or terrorist missile. I'm only sure of what didn't bring it down, and that's military accident.
Yes, you nailed it all right. And the world thanks you. Take a bow.
The Seawolf, which had recently completed sea trials but had not yet been fully commissioned into service, was participating in a major Navy exercise off Long Island in exercise area W-105. The exercise was dubbed GLOBAL YANKEE '96."
Well let's see. USS Seawolf was commissioned in July 1997, one year after the TWA 800 downing. She didn't even begin sea trials until July 2, 1996 and two weeks later would not even be close to completing sea trials and wouldn't be testing her normal weapons suite much less top secret missiles. I find it hard to believe that such a test was so important that the president had to be involved. If you're right this was a test of an anti-aircraft missile. Why would that be so important that the president would personally oversee the testing? Drones are not towed, targets are. Drones are by definition self-propelled, and P-3s would not be used as target tugs. The navy has other aircraft for that. And why would the navy test such a super-secret missile next to a heavily trafficked air corridor and millions of potential witnesses instead of the much more secure surroundings of the test range off Puerto Rico?
But I give the blogger high marks for imagination.
If that's what it was, why was the FBI and CIA involved, and why were the planes not grounded ?
LOL, the bitter liar spits.
Hey it's not my fault you suck at your job.
Hey, not everyone can be you.
Everyone wants to be Cary Grant. Even I want to be Cary Grant.”
― Cary Grant
The crew of the P-3 that was towing the drone was immediately transferred to new assignments. The P-3's number 3 engine showed signs of damage from the explosion of TWA 800 and maintenance records on the engine were suppressed by the Navy. Three other submarines participating in GLOBAL YANKEE '96 were also ordered out of the area. They were the USS Albuquerque, the USS Augusta, and the USS Trepang. The FBI accounted for all missiles aboard the three submarines but not those on board the Seawolf, which was not yet officially commissioned into service and which had just completed it sea trials a little over a week earlier.
Our source confirmed that US Navy SEAL team members were dispatched to recover TWA 800 wreckage with the sole intent being the alteration of the debris to fit the story of a defective fuel tank explosion. Two U.S. Navy salvage ships, the USS Grasp and USS Grapple, were sent to Long Island waters to recover TWA wreckage.
In 2000, conservative pundit Reed Irvine confirmed what Salinger had reported four years earlier. Irvine reported that he recorded an interview with a Navy petty officer who was on the deck of a submarine near where TWA 800 was hit by the missile. The petty officer told Irvine that he was "underneath TWA 800 when he saw a missile hit it and the 747 explode overhead."
This is fantastic
Okay we have the P3 flying so close to a 747 that the explosion hit it. FBI counting missiles on submarines, but not the PCU submarine that allegedly shot the plane down after completing an unspecified sea trial. (You know there are a lot of sea trials right?) SEAL teams planting evidence. And some goofball standing on the "deck" of a submarine directly under flight 800 like it's a WW2 sub running along on the surface or something.
This is amazing.
Well I do like the Seawolf angle. Of course it's the Seawolf. Most advanced and secret sub. Great for conspiracies. Not even commissioned yet and shooting down planes. You do know that it didn't into service until 2001 right? There were a lot of teething problems on the first of class most advanced sub ever built.
And I mean teething problems other than having a non-existent subsurface to air missile shooting down an airliner. No, like real ones. When my boat was parked next to it, we heard about the anechoic tiles peeling off at speeds I cannot mention during alpha trials.
You served on subs, I served on ASW aircraft, both of us were in at around the time of TWA 800. Like I said, what would we know?
All hands, rig ship for reduced intelligence.
The emphasis of your post should truly be the word simple if the story on the other end of that link made sense to you and got you excited. Holy cow.
Oh and psst, 20 years.
Clearly because terrorism was initially suspected as a possible cause as planes do not ordinarily just explode all on their own.
As for not grounding, you realize that the suspected cause of ignition was damaged wiring from work done in the area not too long before the explosion, not from any particular design defect.
We're just trolls and shills, trolls and shills...
Indeed, I am a simple man.
Although, even after 20 years, I notice you still haven't understood it.
The truth is where you find it, not where you'd prefer it would be.
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.