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.

 

New information about Flight 800.

page: 2
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

donlashway
reply to post by mikell
 


Did find a interesting page The real reason TWA Flight 800 was destroyed

Think this guy is a ATS poster for sure?


Very interesting read.

That exact same info was also posted on Jan 1, 2004 by a member named Kalki who it seems has not logged on to ATS since 2006. He didn't source or quote it - looks like he typed it out.

Here's the post: TWA Flight 800 - Kalki post

Odd...and interesting.

ETA - Actually looks like he did source it in a prior post in that thread but then cut & pasted or typed it out in a following post. Different source than yours though which seems no longer to exist.

Either way - wild info, and I agree - if the person sourced in the document isn't a member here, they definitely ought to be...
edit on 11/21/2013 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I’m a senior aerospace engineer with a government high-tech agency, so I know a bit about rockets and missile systems. There are a number of details in witnesses’ accounts that point to the conclusion that the missile that hit Flight 800 was a Soviet-designed SA-2 radar guided Surface to Air Missile (SAM).

There was at least one (and, I think, more than one) witness who described the bright light that intercepted the 747 as ascending rapidly UP from the ground, flying ABOVE the 747, then turning around and hitting the 747 on the way DOWN. One witness described it as “an upside down Nike Swoosh”. Not many people know it, but that flight profile is exactly how Soviet SAMs are programmed to fly, because it maximizes the probability of a kill for two reasons. First, when the missile is coming down at the target from on top, the target has less chance to maneuver out of the way. Second, when the missile is coming at the target from on top, the target presents the largest possible radar cross-section. The missile carries its own small radar set that steers the missile to a pre-set distance from the target and tells the warhead when to explod. Radar controlled SAMs of that era do not hit-to-kill, they get close to the target and detonate a fragmentation warhead (kind of like a huge shotgun blast). I think it’s no coincidence that the primary damage to Flight 800 was at the center fuel tank—that’s where the wings and fuselage come together and create the biggest radar cross-section. The missiles are programmed more or less to take a “center-of-mass” shot. In my opinion, this more-or-less confirms that the “bright light” that everyone reported was a radar guided interceptor missile.

The FBI spent a lot of time setting up and then demolishing the idea that the light everyone saw was an interceptor missile—based entirely on the premise that it would have been a small, man-portable, heat-seeking (MANPAD) missile. The FBI was right—the signature that witnesses reported is NOT consistent with a MANPAD--but is entirely consistent with a large, radar-guided two-stage SAM. To my knowledge, the FBI never publicly addressed the possibility that what witnesses were seeing was a radar guided SAM; they relied on the fact that most of the public would not be able to tell the difference between a radar SAM and a heat seeking MANPAD. That’s a classic disinformation tactic that allows the FBI to cover its butt; it allows the FBI to lead the public to believe what they want them (us) to believe without having to tell a direct lie.

At least one witness described the “bright light” ascending rapidly from the surface, trailing a prominent “smoke” trail for a certain distance and then winking out. A fraction of a second later, the light came on again a little higher in the air and with a different, reddish color. What the witness was describing was a two-stage rocket, where the second stage used a different propellant than the first stage (that’s why the change in color). It’s common to use a solid fuel in the first stage because that provides a big, quick boost to get the missile off the ground and up to high altitude as quickly as possible. Solid rocket fuel usually has powdered Aluminum in it to increase the performance. When Aluminum burns it creates a bright, white light and leaves a lot of smoke in the exhaust trail. The only other rocket fuel that’s sometimes used in SAMs is storable liquid propellant (Hydrazine). It provides a relatively constant level of thrust as the missile chases down the target. It also burns with a reddish exhaust flame and leaves less smoke than solid fuel.

The US Navy does not allow Hydrazine on board its vessels because they view it as a safety hazard. US Navy SAMs use solid fuel for both the first and second stages. On the other hand, Soviet-designed SAMs in 1996 did (and still do, I think) use Hydrazine. Iran was one of the countries that purchased and used SA-2s in the 1990s. I think the most likely scenario, by far, is that the missile that hit TWA Flight 800 was a Soviet-designed SA-2, ground-launched, radar-guided SAM.

The US Navy guided missile cruiser the USS Vicennes shot down an Iranian airliner by accident in July, 1988 as it was departing Iranian airspace, over water, with hundreds of people on board. I think TWA Flight 800 was payback.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by nuclearphysicist
 

Dear nuclearphysicist,

Wow! Thank you so very much. Welcome to ATS. That may be the best single post resolution of a discussion I have ever seen. I'm not a guy that normally gushes, but that was great. Please stick around and contribute as much as you see fit, I'm sure it will be valuable.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by AlphaExray
 


I really looked at this whole tragedy in depth for a few months and tend to agree to with your friend. It was an accident (albeit a tragic one) but the coverup was just beyond evil. The families of the victims had a right to know the truth.
(Many of them have found their own "truths" about what really happened and know it wasn't a fuel line.)

I think your friend is right--that this was a darn good dry run for 9/11. They learned a lot--about how easy it is to fool the sleeping masses.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by nuclearphysicist
 


Wow, thanks for the informative post. I learned something new here.

One thing I'm curious about: How did a sub or ship capable of launching the SAM get into our waters? Witnesses said the missile came from somewhere near Long Island, if I remember correctly.

Also, would you gander on the political ramifications of letting Iran off the hook by covering it up? I'm sure TPTB did it to save their own butts, but a consequence of that was not retaliating against a country that perpetrated a terrorist act on American soil---killing hundreds.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by nuclearphysicist
 

Weren't the Raytheon based kinetic intercept systems, two stage solids designed from soviet s-300 plans. I remember reading something about their design team trying to perfect deficiencies shown in the Desert storm deployment of patriot batteries.

AX
FTNWO



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


This happened off the coast of the US. I find it exceedingly hard to believe that the Iranians could pull that off without detection. Add to that fact there were US warships in the area on excercises at the time this Iranian theory seems very hard to swallow.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MRuss
 


There were no enemy subs or ships....the sonar net would have detected them. There were a number of US WARSHIPS running drills in the area at the time of the missle hit. I beleive that the US Navy blew this plane out of the air...perhaps accidentally, who knows.

That seems far moree plausible than the Iranians travelling half way around the world, RIGHT OFF THE COAST to get "revenge".



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   

nuclearphysicist
The US Navy guided missile cruiser the USS Vicennes shot down an Iranian airliner by accident in July, 1988 as it was departing Iranian airspace, over water, with hundreds of people on board. I think TWA Flight 800 was payback.


This part just isn't believable. It doesn't make any sense for payback to have taken them just over 8 years. Why do all that waiting? If Iran wanted to shoot down a random US airliner with a SAM as payback, it would have and could have done so far sooner. It would not take them so long to do it if they actually wanted to; what actually deters them from doing stuff like that then and now is that the US would figure out who did it and retaliate.

Also unbelievable is the part about Clinton not wanting to retaliate because of the election. This has to be a recently created lie. It requires the existence of the 2012 election and Obama's handling of the Benghazi attacks to have formed an impression lending authenticity to such an explanation.

The problem is that it just doesn't apply to the 1996 election at all. Clinton simply could not have lost to Bob Dole. It was one of the most lopsided elections ever and everyone knew it was going to be that way. Dole got the nomination because the Republicans just weren't going to win; the 90s economy was at that point simply too good to beat Clinton. So they gave it to Dole as a thank you for his lifetime of faithful service.

It also doesn't fit Clinton's m.o. While some would have demanded war on Iran, I think Clinton's m.o. would have been cruise missile strikes. Retaliation against military targets like Iran's own missile sites, airplanes, etc would have been supported by the American people and also enough for many of them for 'just one airliner.'



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by deadcalm
 

dear deadcalm,

There is a little something toward the end of nuclearphysicist's post which you might not have noticed. Despite your belief that it couldn't have been fired from a ship, that's not what he was suggesting.


I think the most likely scenario, by far, is that the missile that hit TWA Flight 800 was a Soviet-designed SA-2, ground-launched, radar-guided SAM.


With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Thanks for the reply. The only problem that I have with the Russian missle theory is the range. Where was this Russian made Iranian missle fired from? Surely it wouldn't have been fired from the coastal US....so if it wasn't fired from the coast then where? I have to ask what the likelyhood fo the Iranians being able to successfully

a) Get their operatives into the country undetected?
b) How did they manage to get the missle into the country?
c) How did nobody see them?

It seems to me that in this case, there is an explanation readily available that doesn't require an elaborate plot by the Iranians....and that is the US warships staging missle drills at that time. I'm not suggesting this was done purposely...rather an accident that NEEDED to be covered up for reasons that are easy to understand.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by deadcalm
 

Dear deadcalm,

You're right that there are questions about the theory. I don't know which theory is right, or even if the right one has been discussed. I'm just playing around (but seriously).

Some of my questions:

Why couldn't it have been launched from a coastal area? Is every piece of coast to maybe ten miles in, that heavily populated? But now for your questions:


a) Get their operatives into the country undetected?
b) How did they manage to get the missle into the country?

Before 9/11, before the clampdowns and the 100 mile search limit, before people were worried about the porosity of the border with Canada? I don't see any trouble getting people or even a disassembled missile into the country. And I'm not sure it couldn't have come in by yacht, but I don't know what the security is like if it's a yacht registered to some Middle-astern gazillionaire.


c) How did nobody see them?
Here's a picture of the thing:

It's about 11-12 yards long. it travels from 10.6 miles to 20.6 miles, depending on the version. I wouldn't think they'd have to be right on the coast. I'm too lazy to create a map showing a 20 mile radius around La Guardia.

I don't know if nuclearphysicist's theory is correct, but it still seems reasonable.

Oh, I don't know if it matters, but the launch was just at sunset.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Thanks for the feedback...however having seen the picture of the missle that you provided it makes me even more dubious of the Iranian missle theory. Even if the missle were dismantled it would have to be reassembled....and then transported to it's firing location. I can't believe that nobody would notice that.

As for the yacht theory....as I mentioned, there were a number of US warships in the area staging drills at the time....and I can guarantee that a missle launch would not have escaped the Navy's notice. It would have been easy to trace the missle back to it's approx launch location. Besides....if you have missle drills being conducted in that area, i don't think you would have any civilian vessels in the area for obvious reasons.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by deadcalm
 

Dear deadcalm,

Sorry I wasn't more clear about the yacht theory. I was thinking that it would be possible for a yacht to bring it into the United States, like a drug smuggling boat. Launching something like that from a boat seems to be a good way of putting a very large hole in the boat.

I suppose, and here I'm just thinking in strange "conspiracy" terms, the yacht bring it ashore in two or three pieces or a period of time. The pieces are carried to a woods, where they are assembled. The pieces are tested for a a while, and when the bad guys are satisfied, they open up their airline schedules and wet their pants when they see an Israeli flight due to come in. Check the radar, and the time of arrival, push the button, and miss (sort of).

I'm not saying I believe it. I don't know what happened, cut me some slack here. I just think it's one of several possible explanations.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


You mistake me. I am not being beligerent. I appreciate the feedback. I'm just thinking out loud. The whole idea just seems implausible to me.
edit on 24-11-2013 by deadcalm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by deadcalm
 

Dear deadcalm,

I am really sorry. That wasn't what I intended at all. Please forgive me. "Cutting me some slack" must have a different meaning for you than it does for me. I meant it as "Let me cut a corner or two, this is a tough job, and I'm giving it my best." I didn't think you were being belligerent at all.

Now, about implausible, I agree with you. Sure it is. So is every explanation out there. I don't know enough to say that any one explanation is the right one, but let me tell you why I don't think it was a US ship firing accidentally.

First, assume it was a "live fire" missile drill where a bunch of ships were launching. I can't imagine that ever happening near a flight path. They would have either been somewhere else, or cleared the airspace. I can't accept that at all.

Second, assume that it was not intended to be "live fire," but one ship slipped past the safety locks and let one go. Every other ship and seaman in the exercise would know what happened, and it's tough to silence that many people. This may be just a touch more likely, but I don't believe that either.

If we're sticking with the idea of a US ship launching, wouldn't it have to be in a position where other ships didn't see what it was doing? But everybody claims there were ships all over, so that doesn't work either.

If I'm right so far, and I don't know that I am, we're left with a foreign ship launching in such a way that the other ships in the area didn't detect it, and blow it to pieces. It doesn't seem to fit.

A land launch from the coast? I think that's all that's left. The nationally of the guy who pushed the button, US, Iran, or somewhere else, is open for debate. But if it's the US that did it, I can't figure why. It didn't get us into war, and Clinton behaved as if it wasn't us.

I'm still wide open, and would like to have your thoughts on my reasoning.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   
If you read the eyewitnesses statements carefully-and not just accept what other say they say-it is plain the entire missile impact is impossible. The most descriptive statements all concur that a streak of light-either going up towards the aircraft or downward away from it-was followed by an explosion and fireball-which is impossible due to distance off shore as the light travels much faster than sound. This discrepancy has never been explained and, most likely never will.

The most persuasive evidence is of course no ship to air missile could have been fired off with out more than 50 sailors being aware of it. Unless you subscribe to some kind of Bush/Chaney 9/11 voice morphing mind control weapon then it could have never been kept quiet. Anyone who says the sailors were 'ordered' not to talk knows nothing about the military in general or the Navy specifically.

No other maritime accident involving a large passenger plane has ever been investigated to the level of flight 800. 10 months of intensive FBI man hours involving hundreds of agents, along with the seemly impossible task of recovering almost all the wreckage, still could find no link to terrorism, nor could they produce a better explanation of what really happened.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Im no expert on surface to air missiles but i can`t believe it was a US one launched by mistake surely they would have the ability to destroy it in flight once they had realized their mistake?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join