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 ...
Other than doing it underneath a fishing boat, all of this is quite conceivable. Every boat has to do an EMBT blow once a year plus after major maintenance to components in that system. And VIPs often get thrill rides and are allowed to steer the boat.
Concerning the accident, you can find reports on the internet of what the crew did incorrectly with respect to tracking vessels.
I've been aboard during numerous emergency blows, which do look like the boat is leaping out of the water. It's sort of routine. During one of them, I was asleep in my rack, awoken by the dive alarm. I then slid all the way one direction in the rack, then floated above the mattress briefly. That was the most fun one. For all the others, I was on my feet and not far enough forward in the boat to experience the weightlessness.
P3 was supposedly towing a drone nearby, presumably at a lower altitude and slower than the 747. Missile decides the 747 is a preferable target, streaks by the drone and takes out the 747. Dummy warhead means that the plane breaks apart from mechanical stresses as its falling. Radar indicates it finally explodes at 7500 feet, where it is now close enough to the P3 for parts of the explosion to damage the P3 props. P3 is still in the area to observe the catastrophe as it happened.
FBI counting missiles on submarines, but not the PCU submarine that allegedly shot the plane down after completing an unspecified sea trial.
Missiles were experimental new tech, did not look like torpedoes. No torpedo was fired, all present and accounted for. Top secret missile tech non of FBIs business, not divulged to them - or, the only missile onboard was the one fired for the test, so it was already gone without ever affecting the normal missile and torpedo count.
SEAL teams planting evidence.
Now that's a stumper. Who could ever imagine a SEAL team doing such a thing, what with all their daily prayer services and feeding of the homeless.
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.
As it was supposedly a test, such a goofball might well have been a captain in his conning tower, or even a conning tower video camera placed underneath to photograph the missile striking the drone for later analysis of the tracking software efficiency.
This is amazing.
Actually, it was, since they ended up shooting down a 747.
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.
Exactly - perfect still-being-tested platform for deniability if there was a screwup, like, oh, shooting down a 747.
---
Look, once you get rid of 1) the ridiculous center fuel tank spontaneously exploding for the first and only time in 747 history, and 2) you acknowledge that hundreds of people saw a missile rise up and hit the plane, and 3) the fact that a big naval exercise involving the Aegis area combat integration system was taking place at the same time, the explanation is hardly difficult or mysterious.
So.... you are saying that with the best of intentions, and tons of 'procedures', the US NAVY made a mistake leading to an incident where a bunch of innocent civilians were killed ?
I've been aboard during numerous emergency blows, which do look like the boat is leaping out of the water. It's sort of routine. During one of them, I was asleep in my rack, awoken by the dive alarm. I then slid all the way one direction in the rack, then floated above the mattress briefly. That was the most fun one. For all the others, I was on my feet and not far enough forward in the boat to experience the weightlessness.
For all you know, the sub could have fired a missile (or a torpedo), then done an emergency dive, and even if you knew they were firing it (while you were asleep), you had no way to know where it went or what it hit because you are in a SUB that is submerged. Correct ?
As I'm just as sure you realize that they also found NO EVIDENCE that this was the source of ignition. No evidence of actual shorting or arcing.
Those who 'suspect' it was a missile or drone had some initial evidence in the video that was on TV the first day, and the eyewitness accounts of hundreds.
So... which theory has more 'evidence' to support it ?
Let me ask you this. We know for sure that the plane was cut in half and that the 'nose' section came off first (although there are rumors an engine came off first, but the FBI altered where it supposedly landed).
If it was the CWT that was the source of the explosion, why did the nose section, far ahead of the WINGS break off ?
Why, in the 'reconstruction' of the plane photos is there no NOSE SECTION nor TAIL nor are the WINGS anywhere ?
Why are photos of the main fuselage all taken from only ONE SIDE ?
Why doesn't the CWT look like it exploded ?
Why is there what appears to be a round circular hole forward of the wings ?
Again, not discounting the knowledge and experience of either of you, but if you were not part of these alleged Naval Exercises, how would you know what happened ?
When the Navy conducts classified or secret Naval Exercises, do they normally send out a detailed brief of the entire exercise to every person in the Navy ?
(because this needs to be said)
Thank you both for your responses and participating in the debate and taking a side and defending it.
Without a minimum of two sides, there is no debate, there are no facts established, there is no truth found.
If there was a short in the wiring between a voltage source and the sensor wires, wouldn' the fuel INDICATORS go crazy ? Wouldn't that be recorded on one of the 'blackboxes' as occurring just prior to the explosion ?
If that were true, don't you think they would have shown that as proof ?
How does a plane have it's center wing tank explode, and the wings NOT fall off ? How does the nose fall off and the plane continue on with the wings attached and the engines keep running if the CWT exploded (which should have damaged all the wiring since the main wiring from the cockpit to the engines and fuel tanks runs right through the CWT) ?
I'm still hunting the AA missiles. Maybe those were manufactured in my mind based upon these. That aside, it isn't much of stretch to assume anti-aircraft missiles could be fired from a sub, given the fact that cruse missiles can be fired from torpedo tubes. Germany was developing self-guided AA missiles. Given today's electronics, it isn't difficult to image a guidance system locating aircraft autonomously.
Still, there is no reason whatsoever to suspect such a thing in the TWA800 incident.
Because for 30 years as part of my job I studied submarines, weapons, and tactics as part of ASW. The other gentleman did the same from the submarine. We are familiar with processes, routines, training, and operations. And with all that the submarine-launched missile scenario makes absolutely no sense. The military, be it CAF or USN, is safety conscious almost to a fault. There is no conceivable reason why they would conduct a live fire exercise anywhere near civilian traffic. There is nothing to be gained from taking that risk. So the idea that they would be shooting off missiles near Long Island is a non-starter from the beginning. A submarine lives and dies by stealth. They live their lives being a dark hole in the ocean as quiet as possible. A subsurface-to-air missile completely destroys that stealth. The only way to target it or fire it is to give the subs position away. None of this scenario makes any sense at all.
I don't know what downed the TWA flight. But I can be pretty sure what didn't. And that was a navy missile of any kind.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. But there was no cover up, and everything that happened was within the capabilities of that class of submarine. (I was also on a submarine that instead of doing and EMBT blow to get to the surface in an emergency, it would instead drop lead weights.)
For all you know, the sub could have fired a missile (or a torpedo), then done an emergency dive, and even if you knew they were firing it (while you were asleep), you had no way to know where it went or what it hit because you are in a SUB that is submerged. Correct ?
If the boat fired a torpedo (Mk 48), land attack missile (Tomahawk) or anti-ship missile (Harpoon), it would have woken me up. I would not know where it was heading, but the fire control technicians would. There is a ten to one enlisted to officer ratio, and the officers couldn't send the crew away from their stations.
The submarine does not have the ability to track airborne targets, but the sonar would detect a 747 smashing into the surface of the ocean.
We're straying from things I know about to stuff I have to take the word of others on. Too bad my 747 mechanic father isn't around to talk about this.
However, I kind of recall that there were a few odd indications a couple of minutes before the explosion that the pilots discussed and was captured on the cockpit voice recorder. IIRC, one of them was a tank level or something related. I believe the other one was a higher voltage system, and that both circuits ran in the same conduit. I think that is what lead the NTSB to their theory.
How does a plane have it's center wing tank explode, and the wings NOT fall off ? How does the nose fall off and the plane continue on with the wings attached and the engines keep running if the CWT exploded (which should have damaged all the wiring since the main wiring from the cockpit to the engines and fuel tanks runs right through the CWT) ?
Again, we're getting into areas where I would have to take the word of others.
The only thing I can answer is that the engines are the source of the electrical power since they drive the generators, but turbofan engines do not need electricity to run as long as fuel is supplied. The fuel is ignited by the heat of compression (like a diesel engine), not through spark plugs (like a gasoline engine). I don't know if the fuel pumps are electrical or mechanical however.
Drones don't need to be towed. The BQM-74 is the workhorse drone of the navy. It's basically a cruise missile without a warhead.
I knew a navigator on the P-3, but other than that, I don't know a whole lot about them. But I've never heard of them towing targets. Looked on the internet, and can't find a single reference to that capability.
Furthermore, that link said the P-3 was at 20,000 feet, which is well above TWA 800.
Missiles were experimental new tech, did not look like torpedoes. No torpedo was fired, all present and accounted for. Top secret missile tech non of FBIs business, not divulged to them - or, the only missile onboard was the one fired for the test, so it was already gone without ever affecting the normal missile and torpedo count.
I don't really know how federal agencies interact, but I would imagine it would be NCIS here, not the FBI. All I know is that when we lost the 8mm video of Spice World, NCIS came on our ship to investigate.
But c'mon do you really believe that the navy had a contractor create a new type of Top Secret subsurface to air missile (really? Top Secret? Why would it be Top Secret for an anti-aircraft missile?), test fired it in a busy air corridor, shot down a 747 then erased the program's entire existence? I don't.
Now that's a stumper. Who could ever imagine a SEAL team doing such a thing, what with all their daily prayer services and feeding of the homeless.
There are a lot of moving parts to this conspiracy. Now we have SEALs not only willing to fabricate evidence underwater, but able to outsmart metallurgists in the NTSB. Which is rather redundant since either the NTSB is in on the conspiracy or the FBI or the CIA just negated the NTSB's findings. So why even alter the evidence with SEALs in the first place?
As it was supposedly a test, such a goofball might well have been a captain in his conning tower, or even a conning tower video camera placed underneath to photograph the missile striking the drone for later analysis of the tracking software efficiency.
Modern nuclear submarines do not have a conning tower. But perhaps you meant the bridge. Regardless, the video camera is on the periscope mast. No need to surface. Nuclear submarines rarely surface in the open ocean. The shape of the hull makes surface transit rather uncomfortable due to the instability. And more importantly, you just announced yourself as a big ass target.
Actually, it was, since they ended up shooting down a 747.
Not a shred of evidence to back that up. Closest thing you have is witnesses from 10 miles away and further saying they saw a missile come up from below, and that's it. Unless you're some sort of flat Earth type of guy, exactly how far across the horizon do you think you can see?
Exactly - perfect still-being-tested platform for deniability if there was a screwup, like, oh, shooting down a 747.
So the PCU Seawolf has this super Top Secret new missile system working before it even got the tried and true Tomahawk missile system integrated into the BSY-2 Combat Control System? Right, okay.
That’s more properly referred to as a sail. Earlier diesel powered subs spent most of their time on the surface and the boat was conned from there for much of its time at sea. For modern subs other than entering and leaving port the boat is conned from the control room.
But what paint color do they use for it? And how many gallons of paint does it take? And how long does it take to dry before it can go underwater?
Pish, you know nothing.
I realize you have no knowledge about the things you have been writing about, but I would have thought you would at least be smart enough not to get in a pissing contest about submarines with a guy that used to live on a submarine.
That is a picture of the sail. The part that the crew is standing in is called the bridge. The conning tower, if equipped, is located inside the sail below the bridge and above the control room.
Modern nuclear submarines, such as the Ohio class sub in your photo, do not have conning towers.
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.