Tell that to all the dead children that were on this boat.
(source: www.historyandheadlines.com)
Posted on 06/16/2016 9:12:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
James Sanders was the first investigative reporter to get beyond the TWA 800 press releases issued by the FBI. He paid a high price for doing so. If Sanders seems a bit cynical, the reader will soon understand why. -- Jack Cashill
America’s citizens must learn the truth: Reality is what remains after federal propagandists interpret fact. This is an absolute truth for citizens living in a failed republic -- including the United States in 2016.
I’m a medically retired police officer from southern California with more than thirty years experience investigating federal lawlessness buried within the National Archives storage boxes and the Freedom of Information Act. In my investigation of TWA Flight 800 among other incidents, I discovered that the greater story was the fall of the American Republic.
Over the decades it became abundantly evident the federal National Security State does not care what the law states. It will fight to keep the worst sins classified even though the law says documents classified secret and more than fifty years old must be declassified with only two very narrow exceptions: weapons of mass destruction and the name of a source.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The metal was bent INTO the fuel tank, hence it could not have exploded.
...
Please provide the evidence for that and I’ll look at it.
Lot’s and lots of information out there - find it yourself.
I rather do not have any confidence that you would believe ANY link I would provide to you.
Go bother someone else and have a day.
There are no "High voltage" wires in the 747-100. The highest voltage used is 115 volts.
There can be no "short circuit" because signal carrying wires are not going to run through the same conduits as are power carrying circuits.
I would like to see what sort of sending unit they use on this aircraft. Chances are it wouldn't discharge any appreciable energy into the tank if you deliberately shorted it to the main power circuits. From the little bit I can find so far, it indicates the sensor is capacitive, and if that is true, then there is absolutely no way that deliberately feeding 115 volts into the sensor element will create a heat source.
Okay, here you are showing that you don't know anything about missiles, and you've likely never seen one fired either in person or in video.
Missiles squirm. They don't always fly straight, and it is a characteristic of their design.
The cruder the missile is, the more likely it is to squirm around. The more advanced designs have a position predicting algorithm and don't have to rely so heavily on tracking where the target was when they last sent a correction to the control fins, or other steering system.
Watch this video of these Iron Dome missiles in action. It's not the wind blowing their smoke path, their positions and orientations actually squirm around.
115 volt wires are high voltage compared to the FQIS wires and that's the voltage used in the short circuit tests. It's also 400hz instead of 60hz.
There can be no "short circuit" because signal carrying wires are not going to run through the same conduits as are power carrying circuits.
The only thing I can tell you is that you're wrong. There's a high density of wiring on an aircraft and many of them converge near and in the cockpit. The NTSB found that not only are low and high voltage wires routed together by design, but sometimes they are routed together against design. I do believe they have made recommendations to have the wires separated as much as possible since the TWA800 findings. They've also looked into transient suppression devices to make the wiring safer.
Tell that to all the dead children that were on this boat.
(source: www.historyandheadlines.com)
Both sets of wires have insulation on them that are rated for better than 600 volts. That's 1200 volts of insulating capacity between them according to the specs. The 400 hz is immaterial.
The only thing I can tell you is that you're wrong.
No, you cannot "tell" me that, you can assert it, but to "tell" me something, you have to know something about the subject, and I can clearly see that you don't.
The NTSB found that not only are low and high voltage wires routed together by design, but sometimes they are routed together against design.
And you never did answer my question about what the NTSB would do if the President ordered them to Deem it an accident.
What would they do?
Yes. Salinger was publicly embarrassed by the FBI and US News Media, and disappeared from public notice. Then he died of a 'heart attack'.
No, you cannot “tell” me that, you can assert it, but to “tell” me something, you have to know something about the subject, and I can clearly see that you don’t.
...
You don’t have to believe me. Look at the NTSB report on the condition of the wires recovered from TWA800 and wires observed on other aircraft of similar age. They also have information on the routing of the wires and as I mentioned before the results of laboratory testing that demonstrated arcing and the energy of the arcs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC_kGP9r78U
The cruder the missile is, the more likely it is to squirm around.
And the less likely it is to hit its target. It doesn't make sense to cart a crude, unreliable missile all the way across the Atlantic.
Purdue77 wrote: “You don’t shoot a 747 out of the air on purpose and not have a reason, good or perceived. I haven’t heard anyone explain why the navy would shoot it down.”
There was an explanation offered many years ago. According to this allegation, the US Navy was conducting a live fire exercise off Long Island against a target drone. The drone passed close to the 747 and the Navy radar lost track on the drone and began to track the 747 which resulted in the missile hitting the 747.
It is difficult to imagine a more absurd speculation.
gr8eman wrote: “Never said it was a Navy missile...just know what I saw.”
Sorry, only the first question was for you, ie, about the thermite missile. The second question was for anyone who’d like to answer.
I’m not sure, but I doubt Iran would have been turned into a glass parking lot if that’s where you’re going with this.
Strac6 wrote: “As just one simple fact, out of so many that disprove all this BS, does anyone think a Navy ship could have shot down a huge airplane and no sailor aboard the ship wouldn’t have screamed to the media?”
There were many on free republic that claimed every sailor on the ship would have obeyed an order not to talk about it. Tried pointing out that such an order would be illegal but few would listen.
If the Navy was doing live fire tests in any area near the coast there should have been a NOTAM closing off the area to aircraft as well as a notice to boaters to look out for falling debris. I assume there wasn’t any. And, the tower didn’t vector TWA 800 away from the area. You are right, it sounds fishy.
angryoldfatman wrote: “In 1996, the most common variant of the Stinger missile had a maximum range of ~26,000 feet.”
Intercept range or launch range?
Purdue77 wrote: “And, what type of missile was used? TWA800 was reportedly at ~16,000 feet when the incident happened. No manpad had that altitude capability, at that time. If it was a larger missile, how did we miss it? And, manpads at that time were IR guided and probably still are. Why would this hit the underbelly of a non-manuevering a/c instead of one of the engines running in climb thrust.”
I would like to know the type of missile too.
It certainly wasn’t launched from shore. The aircraft was 10 miles off shore and at 13,000 feet. Takes a pretty good size missile, maybe HAWK sized, to hit that target. If it was launched from shore, where was the missile battery located? Why didn’t anyone notice the radars, launchers, etc.
Supposedly, the missile left a glowing trail till intercept. Really? Usually the motor burns out prior to intercept and after burn out there is no glowing trail.
No way a MANPADS will destroy a 747. The warhead is about the size of a handgrenade. It certainly isn’t big enough to blow the front end off.
“Was the incoming object arching down?
No. It appeared to come from an angle left of and below the plane. They tried to say it may have been a Navy “oops!”, but that story went away too, once the “investigation” began in earnest.
Bfl
Yes, there was. I remember that video.
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.