'Bombing' of TWA Flight 800: Reed Irvine reveals new admissions by Stephanopoulos and Kallstrom

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Thursday, September 20, 2001 | Reed Irvine

[smorgle]

Hey, thanks. My take also, that in the heat of the current situation they inadvertently told some truth. I'm weighing "bombing" vs. 'missile attack' or 'shoot-down'. Sometimes I myself have mentally used 'bombing' as a shorthand for 'missile attack' and wonder if George does too.

[Come get it]

Actually nothing in a luquid state can burn

You are taking my comment out of context. I was responding to another comment regarding the inability of scientists to ignite vapors in the lab. Yellow Rose of Texas said "If jet fuel does not explode then were the WTC buildings on fire from candles?", and I responded that jet fuel is not explosive like gasoline, it burns more smoothly.

I realize that oxygen is needed and I was not saying that it wasn't. If a flammable liquid is enclosed in a container with no air, combustion is not possible, like you say. However, liquids can burn if oxygen is present in the vapors above the fuel. Pour alcohol into a saucepan and light it. It burns. Technically it is the vapor immediately on the surface that is burning, not the liquid itself. The situation in the fuel tank is not like this, however. The fuel tank has some gas above the liquid inside, but there is very little oxygen present. It would be either a vacuum or carbon dioxide (depending on how the fuel system handles the evacuation of fuel). This is what the scientists did in the lab. They had re-created the environment inside the fuel tank and could not get the vapor to explode, because there was not enough oxygen. This is why I do not believe that a fuel tank explosion was the cause. If they had done the same experiment with gasoline, I'm sure it would have exploded because gasoline is much more volatile.

The point I was making to YROT was that jet fuel DOES burn, it doesn't explode like gasoline. It is a fuel which is not as volatile as others, which is why the vapors would not ignite.

[cva66snipe]

Sorry I read it wrong. My experiences with JP-5 have found it to be closer to diesel fuel in it's ignition or flame point. If I'm not mistaken the Navy can on smaller engines like a Detroit 671 with a few adjustments interchange the fuels.

[Come get it]

My experiences with JP-5 have found it to be closer to diesel fuel in it's ignition or flame point

Exactly. A much smoother, and longer, burn. This is what contributed to the collapse of the towers. The fuel burned so slowly (almost an hour) that it weakened the steel in the building.

[timestax]

bttt

[timestax]

bump to the top please !!

[FITZ]

In the current investigation, especially following the money, I wonder if both Clinton's won't be found to have taken much money from Arafat and who knows who else in the vicinity?

Yes, follow the money!

[timestax]

bttt

[conservative cat]

Off the top of my head, I think it was a 747-200.

[arete]

Didn't Rush Limbaugh dismiss the theory that 800 was a terrorist hit, or brought down by a bomb, because Kallstrom was his friend, he trusted Kallstrom, and Kallstrom assured us it wasn't a bomb or a missile? Is it time to pressure Rush to show some credibility and ask some questions?

Rush is not an independent thinker. He is given a script to follow by the RNC and he follows it. Nobody wanted the truth to come out about TWA 800 -- it would have caused panic and we would have had to actually do something. Believe me, if the WTC hadn't been hit and fallen on national TV, the pols would have been trying to cover it up too. Now the cats out of the bag and we're still being lied to. This thing is a heck of a lot bigger than just bin Laden and his followers. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that there just may already be not only chemical and bio weapons, but maybe even a nuke or two within our borders. Can you understand why the government has been trying to cover this all up?

Richard W.

[ballina]

Sen. John Kerry repeated this on Larry King last night. He was talking about terrorism, and in a matter-of-fact statement, he listed the "bombing" of TWA 800 as a terrorist attack on the US.

[FormerLurker]

FYI

[Harrison Bergeron]

As a number of sober military FR minds quietly stated during the TWA800 debacle, if it was indeed shot down, it was shot down for grave cause. Thanks to 9/11, idea is no longer in the TFH realm. We'll probably never know the details. But if this is the case, the Clintons can rot in hell knowing that their politically motivated coverup contributed to the deaths of almost 7000 people on 9/11/01.

[timestax]

As a number of sober military FR minds quietly stated during the TWA800 debacle, if it was indeed shot down, it was shot down for grave cause. Thanks to 9/11, idea is no longer in the TFH realm. We'll probably never know the details. But if this is the case, the Clintons can rot in hell knowing that their politically motivated coverup contributed to the deaths of almost 7000 people on 9/11/01. 94 Posted on 09/26/2001 07:03:01 PDT by Harrison Bergeron

AMEN! you got that right!

[EggsAckley]

BUMP

[backhoe]

Index-