Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kattracks
I'm extremely disappointed that many people are on a stuck groove when it comes to the TWA 800 crash.

I have some serious doubts that a MANPAD could shoot down TWA 800 for the following reasons:

1. The maximum altitude for the best American and Russian MANPAD's is around 10,000 feet. TWA 800 exploded at 13,700 feet, above the maximum altitude of American and Russian MANPAD's.

2. There is no evidence of a fragmentation blast pattern on any part of the plane from the known warhead fragmentation patterns of the Stinger, SA-7, SA-14, SA-16 and SA-18 missiles.

3. Given that MANPAD's use infrared seekers to guide the missile in flight, the most likely place a MANPAD missile will hit are the engine nacelles, especially with the hot exhaust during a climbout. Yet there is no evidence of a warhead fragmentation pattern on any of the engine nacelles from TWA 800.

Now, an accidental shootdown from a US Navy SM-2 missile launched from destroyer might make more sense, given that the SM-2 is radar-guided and would likely impact right in the middle of the target. However, there's no evidence of the warhead fragmentation pattern from an SM-2 missile anyone on the plane.

Besides, how would you cover up the shootdown when you have thousands of people from the NTSB, FBI, FAA, and Boeing involved in the investigation.

91 posted on 05/31/2002 7:02:07 AM PDT by RayChuang88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: RayChuang88
Besides, how would you cover up the shootdown when you have thousands of people from the NTSB, FBI, FAA, and Boeing involved in the investigation.

Sir,

I concede to your MANPAD premise as I wouldn't know a MANPAD if I was sitting on one. Are you saying there is not a single surface to air missle available to terrorists that could have shot down TWA800? I have never formulated a theory as to what caused TWA800; however, Stephanopoulos' unrehearsed and almost panicked comment early in the day on September 11 leaves me wondering:

"There are facilities in the White House, not the normal situation room, which everyone has seen in the past, has seen pictures of. There is a second situation room, behind the primary situation room, which has video conferencing capabilities. The director of the Pentagon, the defense chief, can speak from a national military command center at the Pentagon. The Secretary of State can speak from the State Department, the president from wherever he is, and they'll have this capability for video conferencing throughout this crisis. In my time at the White House it was used in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, in the aftermath of the TWA Flight 800 bombing, and that would be the way they would stay in contact through the afternoon."

109 posted on 05/31/2002 7:50:31 AM PDT by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson