It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It hasnt been proven that a missile hit the plane. Its just some nut who is claiming it.
I see the bolded words but I'm not sure I get your point about another investigation or letting something slip.
Originally posted by NickDC202
With the words I bolded above; Did Kallstrom let something slip about another investigation?
Originally posted by NickDC202
Am I Reading Too Much Into This?
A quite annoyed Fmr FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom was interviewed on CNN by John King moments ago.
In the interview Kallstrom made the following statement which I've transcribed verbatim:
"That plane is rebuilt and it sits in a hanger in Virginia; you know if some brain-child can look at that and come up with some other idea of how that happened, you know, God bless him; but it's been 17 years and that hasn't happened. But I wouldn't be opposed to that. I'm, I'm just a little bit upset because of the... we're very close with the families, we were really bonded with the families, we spent a lot of time with them, we showed 'em things, we talked about it, we tried to dissuade them of all the chatter of the Pierre Salinger's and all the other crazy stuff you know that was out there.. and here now this hits 17 years later. You know I don't say it because I'm defensive about our investigation, you know that can be, that's open to the world that plane is sitting there it's not been buried, it's not been melted down; it's right there. So I'd love to see what this definitive science is that somebody who's got a degree in physics and sits in an armchair and watches this on television could bring that that the most prestigious metallurgists in the world couldn't bring."
With the words I bolded above; Did Kallstrom let something slip about another investigation?
*Note: In the above transcription when the same word appears twice in a row, it is not a mistake; that is exactly what Kallstrom said.
Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by gorgi
It hasnt been proven that a missile hit the plane. Its just some nut who is claiming it.
I wouldn't call a helicopter pilot who flew in Vietnam and still flies in the NY area a nut.
Despite early denials, the Navy finally admitted that there had been three submarines present in the area on the night of the crash. The Trepang; a Sturgeon class attack submarine, the Albuquerque; a type 688 Los Angeles class fast attack submarine equipped with vertical launch tubes, and the Wyoming, a nuclear ballistic missile submarine just out of Groton on sea trials. It has just surfaced that something went wrong on those trials, delaying the commissioning of the Wyoming, and her captain and exec were relieved of command.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
whereas the odds of a missile causing the plane to blow apart into pieces like that, when they never have before, are probably lower (even helicopters hit by MANPADS rarely break apart, and I've never heard of one shattering like this 747 did, and they're more fragile).
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
But there have been other large aircraft hit by missiles that landed just fine, or crashed almost intact (including air to air missiles). And civilian helicopters hit by missiles that didn't blow apart either.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
But there have been other large aircraft hit by missiles that landed just fine, or crashed almost intact (including air to air missiles). And civilian helicopters hit by missiles that didn't blow apart either.
Originally posted by drock905
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
But there have been other large aircraft hit by missiles that landed just fine, or crashed almost intact (including air to air missiles). And civilian helicopters hit by missiles that didn't blow apart either.
examples of commercial airliners being shot down by missiles
Kal 007
Iran air 655
Did these crash intact or did they break up mid air?
edit on 19-6-2013 by drock905 because: (no reason given)edit on 19-6-2013 by drock905 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
I don't see them homing in on the CWT though. While there is a heat source under the center fuselage, the engines would be a better heat source for them to home in on. Like I said in an earlier post, it would be the ultimate golden bb, and the odds of it just happening to hit at the right angle, to get into the fuel tank, without going through the air conditioning unit that sits under the tank, are insanely high.