Flight 800: Major breakthrough! Jack Cashill advises U.S. has conceded wrongdoing against Sanders

Interesting. Now, why in the world would any "seeker" missile (using "layman's terms") fly RIGHT BY the Orion and, instead, lock on to an aircraft much further away?

LS, you are misinterpreting the graph data.

The blip referred to has ALREADY impacted TWA-800 and is travelling away from that impact at mach 2. The vector of that object(s) is from left to right... FROM TWA800 toward the Orion, not right to left. It apparently is ejecta travelling toward the Orion after that impact with the airliner. The speed is calculated on the two blips observed (one close to TWA 800 and the second slightly south of the Orion's track) and the distance covered in the ~4.34 seconds between active radar sweeps.

This may be the body of the "drone" missile you postulate or parts of the stricken 747. However, it is extremely unlikely to be ejecta from a low velocity fuel/air mixture explosion in the center wing tank. Aircraft that have had low velocity explosions occur in interior parts are very unlikely to eject something traveling at Mach 2 that have sufficient mass to continue close to that velocity for over 1.2 miles. Any large (capable of returning a radar echo), massive object close enough to the explosion center to be imparted with such a high velocity in split second would have encountered other parts of the aircraft on the way out and transferred a lot of its momentum to the struck object.

What is perhaps not mentioned is that there are OTHER parts of the aircraft that were ejected on this vector totally at odds to the 450 MPH north-easterly vector of momentum of TWA800, including some seats (3, IIRC) from 1st class and other objects from the passenger cabin. These items represent a debris field entirely seperated from the other debris fields of the main body and the nose. The objects found in this debris field are probably among the first items that left the body of the aircraft. Note that it would be impossible for a Center Wing Tank explosion to impart a high velocity to passenger cabin items (above the CWT) with the vector observed. It would require more of Arlen Spector's Magic Bullet manouvers for the energy to leave the CWT, go up into the 1st class passenger cabin, make a sharp right turn, pick up the objects, push them throught the cabin wall, and propel them a mile or so away on a vector completely different from with the momentum they had been carrying which would tend to make them keep moving in the direction TWA800 was taking.

However, the problem with this is as soon as you raise one issue like this, ten others pop up. ANY MISSILE would have left fragments and debris. I realize all the aircraft debris was not recovered, but surely in ALL the stuff they recovered (and pieced back together) there would have been some pretty obvious parts that did not fit and which were not evaporated in the explosion (say, a rocket motor, casings, and so on). Where is that? Any evidence whatsoever of that?

You are damn right it raises issues...

Exactly what part of "cover-up" do you fail to understand, LS?

If there was an active effort to cover-up the fact that a missile or missiles brought down TWA-800, would those trying to hide this fact have been forthcoming with the rocket motor, casing, or ANY debris from the missile(s)??? Remember, the IDEA is to persuade the public that a missile was not involved... finding evidence of a missile would be COUNTER (if not fatal) TO THEIR INTENT!

The fact is, LS, that there is evidence they DID find such evidence. The FBI funded an extended trawling search effort, at a great deal of expense, LONG AFTER THE MISSILE THEORY WAS OFFICIALLY ABANDONED! Each of the searching vessels was provided with diagrams of missile parts... and one of the Captains said he had ALREADY found an obbject that exactly matched the drawing of the booster engine. It was caught in one of his nets and he tossed it overboard as junk before he was involved in the search. All of this is fact, backed up by physical evidence (a copy of the FBI search protocols and exemplar drawings) and testimony of crew members from the search boats. As an aside, the area the FBI assigned these boats was one consistent with the vector of that mysterious Mach 2 debris track...

Once the "official" stance of "anything BUT a missile" was adopted, any missile evidence had to be made to go away. To do this, those involved in the cover-up did everything necessary to make it go away: lie about the "red residue" and claim it was 3M contact cement (which, incidentally is GREEN), persecute and prosecute the Sanders (one of whom is a qualified journalist), remove all traces of the red residue from the reconstructed plane, re-position the seats so that the track is no longer obvious, confiscate and "send to the FBI lab" any metal parts that appear to show high-velocity explosion indications where they will be lost and never returned, discredit the numerous eye-witnesses by not allowing their testimony and confabulating an impossible zoom-climb scenario to explain anything that cannot be discredited by smearing the witnesses as drunk, drugged, or lying.

You are probably absolutely correct that the radar tracks and the recordings from the numerous military radars operating in the area would reveal exactly what happened.

Perhaps, LS, that is why they are STILL, to this day, classified secret in the "interest of National Security" and HAVE NOT BEEN RELEASED.

Several (if not all) of the ORIGINAL radar recording tapes were taken directly to the Clinton White House in the hours following the event... and only those that were innocuous (or so they thought) were allowed to be released. The rest were "classified."

In what OTHER air disaster have the radar tapes been couriered to the White House? Exactly what expertise (or authority, for that matter) do the political appointees in the White House have to sieze and examine such evidence???

What was their purpose... and who thought it was absolutely necessary????

Pinging you to the thread to see my response to LS...

I saved your debris pattern comments for review later. Thanks.

As I recall, neither the radar data of the Navy shooting down the Iranian passenger liner, nor the data from the shootdown of the KAL airliner, were released. I could be wrong.

I understand your approach to the "the-government-excluded-a-missile" theory so they "looked for" evidence to support their view. However, back up one step and go at this differently, from the so-called "red residue."

What was it? Sanders ORIGINAL position was that it was the exhast of a "runaway" missile that did not explode, but "passed through" TWA. Again, at the risk or repeating myself for the zillionth time, this raises TWO problems:

First, the radar data, which is either "not available" or "controlled" or in dispute.

Second, what type of missile would reach this altitude? (I'm going to use "civilian" terms here.) A Navy AA missile could reach this altitude, but not a Stinger. So we have eliminated a terrorist, right?

A "pass through" missile is not an AA missile. It is characteristic of a DRONE. Why would a drone be at that altitude? And drones do not "lock on" to anything. They are TARGETS or are used to gather data. So let's grant that a drone did get that high and ACCCIDENTALLY flew through TWA 800. I know from personal experience that I cannot discuss with you that a) missiles do not "escape" (unless, as we are now in a war, you don't really care if they "escape.") Cruise missiles are always "chased" by military planes to shoot them down if they get off course. Other drones do not need such chase planes, because they either a) wouldn't have the fuel needed to get off course; b) have an abort mechanism; or c) pose no threat to anyone.

Therefore it is ridiculously unlikely that a drone escaped and totally by happenstance intersected with TWA.

That leaves a "hunter/killer" type AA missile. There are monstrouls problems with this. 1) The Navy does not test such weapons in crowded airspace. A low-level drone, possibly. But not high-altitude AA weapons. NOT DONE.

2) The firing mechanisms on these are such that they simply do not "escape." You have to actively target, and actively fire at a target. Again, fine, except that no one does this over civilian air space.

3) if this was a missile that just "got loose," explain to me how it managed to MISS several other closer "targets" and just home in on TWA. There was a Navy Pc-3 Orion much closer.

There are MILLIONS of dollars riding on the interpretation of the data: the airlines have a HUGE stake in saying it was NOT a fuel tank explosion; and the families stand to make gazillions if they can prove it was a government screwup. So I suggest, that in addition to the radar data, the conspiracy people---since you obviously "know" that a captain found "the" rocket motor---pool your bucks and get some private salvage guys to go where those previous salvage guys were and get that motor. If that captain indeed found this, he knows exactly where he was. It's still there. Easy enough to prove, though not cheap.

I know from personal experience that I cannot discuss with you...

If you can claim this caviat, then surely you will extend the same consideration to others who, for very good reasons, will not reveal sensitive details of newly acquired data on an open forum...Won't you???

Fine. But then we have nothing to discuss, because I know what I know.

I know what I know.

As do I...And you obviously don't, judging by your efforts to learn what new data has surfaced from those who have seen it and, for legitimate reasons (that you have claimed for yourself), refuse to post it on an open forum...

I have no more to say to you. G'day.

bttt

neither the radar data of the Navy shooting down the Iranian passenger liner, nor the data from the shootdown of the KAL airliner

I have yet to see where the radar data of either of the shootdowns was requested by independent investigators under the Freedom Of Information Act and denied. Nobody doubted the fact that the Navy screwed up in the case of the Iranian Airbus, and the Navy was forthcoming in admitting to culpability. Unlike TWA 800...

bookmark

I understand your approach to the "the-government-excluded-a-missile" theory so they "looked for" evidence to support their view.

No, LS, I don't think you DO understand. I did not say that they "looked for" evidence to support their view, I said they deliberately destroyed, obfuscated, confiscated, mis-interpreted evidence that would deny their pre-determined cause of the downing of TWA-800. There is a world of difference.

Yes, they DID, indeed, look for evidence that supported their "view" but to manufacture evidence in support of that view (the useage of butane combined with a far higher than possible electrical arc to get an explosion in a replica CWT), profering expert testimony on the results of chemical analyses that NEVER TOOK PLACE (The so called NASA analysis of the red residue that supposedly "proved" it was 3M contact cement that was later denied by the chemist cited), the creation of impossible explanations to discredit eyewitnesses (the creation of a cartoon presenting a 3700 foot zoom climb that is impossible according to the well understood laws of aerodynamics and physics), and the alteration of the physical evidence (the high-pressure power washing of the recovered aircraft parts with salt water before forensic analysis was allowed, the re-shuffling of the seats to hide the trail of the red residue as witnessed AND PHOTOGRAPHED AS IT WAS BEING DONE, the confiscation, removal to FBI labs, and subsequent loss of metal parts with any possible high velocity damage, the seizure and sealing of all military radar records) is FAR BEYOND merely looking for evidence that supports their view... it is cheating for their view.

. . ."red residue" What was it? Sanders ORIGINAL position was that it was the exhast of a "runaway" missile that did not explode, but "passed through" TWA.

That was one theory Sanders considered. It is not the only theory. incidentally, Sanders did not call it a "runaway" missile. It is also possible that the missile, hitting the fairly weak side of the 747 failed to detonate because it never struck a structural member. 747s are constructed with far more empty space than military aircraft. It may have also passed through and detonated on the far side of the aircraft. Second, what type of missile would reach this altitude? (I'm going to use "civilian" terms here.) A Navy AA missile could reach this altitude, but not a Stinger. So we have eliminated a terrorist, right?

Wrong, we have not eliminated a terrorist. There are more than "stinger" missiles available on the world market. I will grant that the altitude of TWA-800 was on the outside edge of the range of a shoulder fired anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapon like a stinger... but there are also THREE MAN missiles that fire from tripod launching frames that have sufficient range. A few months before the downing of TWA-800 a fully operational tripod mounted anti-aircraft missile was found, abandoned, assembled and ready to fire beside a county road on Long Island near the airport.

A "pass through" missile is not an AA missile. It is characteristic of a DRONE. Why would a drone be at that altitude? And drones do not "lock on" to anything. They are TARGETS or are used to gather data. So let's grant that a drone did get that high and ACCCIDENTALLY flew through TWA 800.

It is also characteristic of an AA missile that fails to detonate. Your "drone" argument is a strawman. Easy for you to knock down... but it really does not fit the facts. Drones are generally NOT powered by solid rocket fuel which cannot be shut off once started and whose flight time is limited to seconds... and drones do not generally fly at Mach 2.

Cruise missiles are always "chased" by military planes to shoot them down if they get off course.

Again you are erecting a strawman... no one said anything about a cruise missile being the culprit in bringing down TWA800. Cruise missiles are essentially unmanned jets that use conventional jet fuel, again not solid rocket fuel.

3) if this was a missile that just "got loose," explain to me how it managed to MISS several other closer "targets" and just home in on TWA. There was a Navy Pc-3 Orion much closer.

Did you fail to read my previous post??? The missile was NEVER close to the Orion. Look at the chart again and pay particular attention to the radar time-stamps for both TWA-800 and the "missile" tracks. The radar track you are referring to is POST initiating event and shows the ejecta from the aircraft. There were no closer targets for the missile to home on. The radar returns, the anomolous debris field all demostrate a missile that originated from the North of TWA-800 and, according to the radar returns, went progressively SOUTH while the main body of the crippled, noseless aircraft continued north-easterly. The ORION was always at least two miles SOUTH of TWA-800s position.

There are MILLIONS of dollars riding on the interpretation of the data: the airlines have a HUGE stake in saying it was NOT a fuel tank explosion; and the families stand to make gazillions if they can prove it was a government screwup.

No, there is no money riding on this. The lawsuits have long since been adjudicated, the plaintiffs have received their settlements and gone on with their lives. The statute of limitations has expired on any new suits. Only justice and truth are in play here.

If that captain indeed found this, he knows exactly where he was. It's still there. Easy enough to prove, though not cheap.

Wrong again, LS. The captain knows he found an object that matched the description given to him by the FBI and he told them he had found it... but he was uncertain of when and where. It was somewhere in the area he normally worked... and that was in the area the FBI had mapped for possible launch sites. We're talking MANY square miles of ocean. He stated it was after the crash while he was trawling and it was just bothersome junk to him. He untangled it from his net and tossed it overboard; just as he has done with countless other pieces of debris. He did not recognize it for what it was until the FBI showed him their drawings of what to look for.

Clever how you conveniently destroy any hope of getting the physical evidence that would prove your case. Please post the evidence on the three-man missile crew on Long Island.

You are right, in that Sanders was careful NOT to say a drone because he knew that realistically no shoulder-fired/terrorist weapon could reach that high, and he also knew that the Navy didn't operate like that.

Clever how you conveniently destroy any hope of getting the physical evidence that would prove your case.

Swordmaker didn't destroy anything, hoss...The FBI/NTSB attempted to, but failed.