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.

 

TWA Flight 800 investigators break silence in new documentary, claim original conclusion about caus

page: 19
165
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
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.




posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I watched the video. Given the the people involved, given the internecine elements involved, inside and between agencies, (how many of the fecking same do you need?) and given the final NTSB report with abridged witness statements, and given stated misuse of evidence, there is no doubt in my mind that the final NTSB report has yet to happen. It is politically vacant, other than a white house spokesperson, and that Bill Clinton did not participate in the video and as did others not, but who were directly involved with their expert opinions.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NickDC202
With the words I bolded above; Did Kallstrom let something slip about another investigation?
I see the bolded words but I'm not sure I get your point about another investigation or letting something slip.

Thanks for the post though, as I was wondering what happened to the plane. I'm surprised it's still there. Warehouse space usually isn't cheap and to take up space in that huge place for 17 years can't be free.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   

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.


Do you want to see him back a bit just to bring things up to date, as if the FBI is a poor relation,



In edit, I should have said this was 2007.
edit on 19-6-2013 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NickDC202
 


It's not uncommon for wreckage to be recycled or destroyed after the investigation is completed. They don't have endless space to store rebuilt planes from accidents. It's actually more unusual they still have the thing this long after the investigation was officially closed



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 


It's low odds yes, but that doesn't mean that a missile did it. I have lost track of the number of fuel tank explosions, either through outside sources, or from within the fuel tank, but it does happen, 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).



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by EViLKoNCEPTz
 


I agree that it is unusual to still have the wreckage on display near Dulles airport.

I was referring to an event involving planes and buildings where a lot of evidence was melted down and wondered if Kallstrom was giving a thinly veiled insight with that comment.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NickDC202
 


Oh, no I don't think so. I think he was referring to the fact they still have it when it would normally have been long gone by now. Either melted down and recycled or buried in an airplane graveyard in the desert somewhere. The wreckage from 9/11 was already all but destroyed save for a few pieces that managed to fly out into the roads surrounding the buildings. The rest was burned or crushed inside the buildings. I'm not one to be big on 9/11 conspiracies though. I think it was just incompetence and arrogance that allowed it to happen. That's not one I like to get involved in since my step brother barely survived it, and my dad oversaw the CAT team that handled the insurance claims for Zurich Commercial, Silversteins insurer.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   

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.


You wouldn't think a guy with six months of food and a few guns was a nut either, but that's what today's media calls them.

After Sandy there were a ton of unprepared people who's lives would have been much easier if they had even 1% prepper in them.

Trying to find info on the sub, having a tougher time than I remembered having 4 years ago.
edit on 19-6-2013 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)


Found it,

rense.com...
edit on 19-6-2013 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)



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.

edit on 19-6-2013 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   

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).



A burning magnesium/uranium pellet at Mach 1.5+ (SAM at degrading Mach .9 as its fuel would be spent, and ballistic addition at Mach .8) with a magnesium combustion/fragmentation approach, were it to penetrate a CWT at low level during fuel balancing - would immediately cause a large kinetic explosion and a fireball.

In no way do you have to reply upon the HE detonation or proximity of the warhead itself to explain the fireball. Besides the fireball was orange, which indicates fuel and not HE - which is white at night. Sort of like Whiskey Pete, but all sudden-like, LOL!!!


And there are thousands of these pellets directed from the HE charge towards the aircraft upon terminal engagement approach detonation.

Helicopter fuel tanks are armored with this expectation in mind by a boron carbide shield. Yeah no way a pellet is just gonna rip through a helo fuel tank.




edit on 19-6-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   

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.


Absolutely, the kill on an HE proximity detonation is a luck of the draw. Any number of factors can cause the target to be a kill or no kill.

I had a buddy who lost his helo to a small bird in the Persian Gulf, and have seen other jets land after a direct missile hit, yes.

Who knows? But if your fuel tank is empty, and it is penetrated by a class Delta combustion magnesium pellet burning at 1450 degrees......I think I would fold on those odds in poker.....




posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   

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)



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Interesting video.....Not sure these were MANPADS, description sounds more like a medium range SAM to me?



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   

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)


These were shot down by larger missiles - the KAL oo7 flight by a Soviet Air to Air and the Iranian Vincennes by a Standard SM-2.. These are relatively large missiles.

In this, Zaph has a great point.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


KAL 007 remained intact until impact. The aircraft pitched up after being hit by two K-8 missiles, due to damage from them. The crew was able to regain control and began a gradual descent, until it went into a descending spiral and radar contact was lost at 1000 feet near Moneron Island.

Iran Air 655 lost part of the tail, and part of or all of one wing, when it was hit by two Standard SM-2 missiles. The reports on that one aren't as easy to find, as it came down in Iranian airspace. There is no official, or even unofficial report other than reporters (who aren't always the most accurate), so it's harder to tell on that one. But we do know that at least part of the aircraft separated.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I'd say this is what they call a "limited hangout" by the lousy gubmint.

Standard false flag attack, by now familiar, back then not so obvious, a "drill" of the same thing going on at the same time.

El Al flight supposed to be shot down, blamed on boogeyman of the day, bombing starts immediately. If you think the Zionists controlling the US gubmint wouldn't shoot down their own plane to further their agenda, you are deluded.

Standard gubmint incompetence, El Al flight delayed at the gate, TWA 800 gets shot down by accident.

Instant coverup mode, can't blame it on the boogeyman because the target does not make sense and therefore does not justify war. Just an "accident", here's the official story, FBI in the thick of it suppressing evidence, holding up the NTSB as much as possible, etc.

I clearly remember seeing that video of the missile at the time, as well.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   

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.


The terminal phase of the approach in some missiles includes a magnetic targeting element to focus/roll the detonation towards the target electromagnetic centroid and not necessarily the heat source, especially if the missile estimates that it will not make skin to skin trajectory.

Hitting the CWT? Not hard at all. In fact, this is the first thing I would be worried about!!!








edit on 19-6-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
165
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join