posted 04-18-2002 11:15 PM               

by the way pacer, the AF sparrow is not a completely autonomous radar-guided system. it requires a lock-on from the firing a/c for the majority of its flight until it is close enough for its own radar to track the target. can a sub maintain a radar lock-on to an aircraft 30 miles away while submerged. from what i understand it doesnt detect the presence of a/c overhead by radar. it does so by listening for them.

posted 04-19-2002 10:23 AM               

While it might not be the norm for a sub to fire a missile, until quite recently, there were no land based facilities to train sub personel how to use the VLS systems as is mentioned on the NAVY's own web site.

New VLS Trainer: Hands-on Wins Hands Down
by Bill Kenny, U.S. Navy Submarine School

In many ways, the introduction of the Vertical Launching System (VLS) fundamentally changed the tactical capabilities of the U.S. Submarine Force. Now, some eighteen years after VLS and the Tomahawk weapon system appeared on submarines, VLS training has caught up.

The new VLS Trainer in the Torpedoman "A" and "C" School at Groton, Connecticut brings unprecedented realism to the learning process for operations and maintenance of a complex weapon system.

As instructor TM1 (SS) Joseph Nagel explains, the trainer - so large that it cost a little over a million dollars and required the classroom ceiling to be cut open to install it - will pay for itself in improved learning. "It's a duplicate of a submarine's vertical launch tube, and we use it for training "A" and "C" school students, as well as for hands-on "just-in-time" training for Sailors from the waterfront. It provides a Weapons Department the ability to practice maintenance, as well as tube loading and unloading, in a real world/real time environment," he said.

Enthusiastic at having it on board, TMC (SS) Paul Leone, Division Director for TM "C" School, recounts the story of the trainer's development: "Quarterbacked by the Naval Systems Command (NAVSEA) over the last two-and-a-half years and working with a lot of different agencies and people, it's been a real labor of love to create the VLS Trainer. We can simulate Mk-1, Mk-2 and BSY-1 fire control systems, and it will be able to emulate the systems aboard the new USS Virginia (SSN-774)-class submarines."

Until now, getting vertical launch weapons on-line and keeping them there has presented significant challenges since there were no land-based trainers, and the whole burden of spinning up Sailors to operate VLS systems fell to on-the-job training. "Now we have the first VLS Trainer in a Navy schoolhouse at Groton, with Pearl Harbor standing by to receive theirs shortly," said Chief Leone. "We need to demystify the maintenance and operation of Tomahawk and VLS, and this is just the training tool to do that." ... http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_8/vls.html

The cost for this land based trainer was over a million dollars and will train something like 140 people a year. Before this facility was constructed, I would think that a lot of their training was done on the job while at sea firing missiles with dummy warheads as was done in 1998.

"Two submarines participated in unusual Tomahawk exercise launches in 1998. USS Atlanta (SSN-712) conducted a dual launch consisting of a TLAM-C and a TLAM-N Quality Assurance Test (QAST). This was the first combined conventional and unarmed nuclear test launch from the same platform. USS Minneapolis- St. Paul (SSN-708) also fired a successful TLAM-N QAST during Exercise GLOBAL GUARDIAN ’99, marking the first time that the European Command exercised unarmed nuclear command and control authority over a LANTFLT SSN." http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_3/pullout/submarine_strike.htm

The one reason that the NAVY might have wanted to keep things quiet, besides the fact that the Olympic Games were scheduled to start in the very neaar future and that another jet had done a nose dive into the Florida Everglades under suspicious circumstances, was because of the heat that they were feeling from the administratioon at that time. The fleet had already been cut in half and might have been cut even more if it were known that it had shot down another jet.

"Fleet requirements for submarines on the front lines have not gone down. In fact, they’ve gone up, and they continue to increase. As our SSN force has been cut nearly in half since 1989, the volume of ISR mission tasking undertaken by submarines has doubled, due to the increased national need for information uniquely obtainable by submarines in many new trouble spots around the globe. With 58 SSNs today, and still falling toward 50, we’re already stretched thin by our efforts to meet all the demands. As I said earlier, you submariners who are doing it, know it. Our national leaders are fighting over you, to get enough submarine mission time to meet their needs, and our Fleet Commanders-in-Chief have repeatedly stated needs for a force level of more than 70 SSNs to carry out their heavy, multi-mission tasking. They know that our stealth, endurance, agility, and firepower make SSNs crucial assets in an unstable world, today and for the future. You respond rapidly to any crisis anywhere in the world, giving our national leadership great flexibility. You do what no other platform can do – while on station and forward deployed continuously for months – you can operate either covertly when required, or overtly if desired. " http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_3/new_world.htm

It might not have been the norm for subs to fire missiles, but times are changing. Below is a little bit of information that I found on the NAVY's web site about the attack capabilities of 688-class subs.

posted 05-08-2002 07:24 AM            

On to another cover up....what are your thoughts on the plane that crashed shortly after the WTC..the one that supposely crashed due to another jet that had just taken off or landed before it. The one that crashed where the NY police and fireman lived. That story sure disappeared off the news scene fast. I think it was terroist and it was covered up to save the airlines from more hardship and so people wouldn't stop flying again.

i'm 99.9% sure that flight 93 was shot down, why? because the 2nd plane crashed into the 2nd tower at approx 9ish. Flight 93 went down at 10:10 approx. If there was a fighter jet approx 2 mins behind the 2nd plane that crashed into 2nd tower... You dont think that fighter went looking for flight 93? and then couldnt find it in an hour...I dont think so... they found it...gave it a warning shot to the wing to cripple it..and it flew for a few more miles then went nose down...how else would they have found personal effects and parts of the plane....miles from the orginial crash site. Why were reporter kept 3/4 miles away from site? Why only a hand full of photos of site, when there were zillions of the other plane crashes? I've only seen 3 at the most. Why in the hours right before the 93 crash and there after did reports keep saying they had no idea where that flight was, when they did know, cause the pilot turned on his equipment without the hijackers knowing. Why aren't they making public the voice recordings in the moments before the crash? Too many inconsistancies, in these stories. (reminds me of JFK)

Our government WILL NOT put no fly zones around our nuclear reactors. Why? because it will cause to much financial and economical hardship. What kinda logic is that. How hard is it to fly around something? We are sitting ducks..bottomline.

Those are my thoughts, love to hear yours.

posted 05-08-2002 06:09 PM               

How about this scenario.

posted 05-08-2002 08:55 PM               

Krissa,

Certainly sounds more plausible than the CIA cartoon depicting a fuel tank explosion and the rise of the cockpit/nose section (created with public funds).

posted 05-08-2002 10:02 PM               

At sea aboard USS O'Brien, Feb. 8, 2002 — The special drone missile team makes final preparations for the launch of three rocket-propelled BQM-74E target drones on fantail of USS O'Brien (DD 975) . The drones are painted orange so that they will be easier to see in the water during recovery. Nine U.S. Navy ships took part this training, an anti-ship missile defense training exercise (MISSILEX 02-1) as part of a Commander Task Force Seven Five (CTF 75) Multi-Sail battle group interoperability exercise. All participating ships are forward deployed in Yokosuka and Sasebo, Japan. U.S. Navy photo by Ens. Lyn Niemeyer [020208-N-0000N-001] Feb. 8, 2002

At sea aboard USS Vandegrift, Feb. 7, 2002 — A standard missile leaves a trail of smoke as it is launched from the starboard side of USS Vandegrift (FFG 48) and heads on an intercept course with an incoming "hostile" drone. Nine U.S. Navy ships took part this training, an anti-ship missile defense training exercise (MISSILEX 02-1) as part of a Commander Task Force Seven Five (CTF 75) Multi-Sail battle group interoperability exercise. All participating ships are forward deployed in Yokosuka and Sasebo, Japan. U.S. Navy photo by Intelligence Specialist 1st Class Matthew C. Ruble. [020207-N-0000R-001] Feb. 7, 2002

At sea aboard USS O'Brien, Feb. 7, 2002 — A BQM-74E target drone launches from the fantail of USS O'Brien (DD 975) and will act as a "hostile" anti-ship missile during a missile training exercise. The drones are painted orange so that they will be easier to see in the water and can be recovered. Nine U.S. Navy ships took part this training, an anti-ship missile defense training exercise (MISSILEX 02-1) as part of a Commander Task Force Seven Five (CTF 75) Multi-Sail battle group interoperability exercise. All participating ships are forward deployed in Yokosuka and Sasebo, Japan. U.S. Navy photo by Ens. Lyn Niemeyer [020207-N-0000N-001] Feb. 7, 2002
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/images/ima-weps6.html

posted 05-09-2002 03:00 AM               

quote:

---

It's known that at least two photographs were taken purporting to show an object in the sky at the time of the 747 explosion. One photo, held by the FBI and never released, is described by the lady who took the picture as showing a sguiggly white trail rising from the water and moving upward, a description that fits a missile.

As for the photograph that did make it to the press, it is reproduced below under "fair use" for educational purposes.

---

The "raw" Kabot photo.

quote:

---

General Observations

The bright plume argues against an air breathing engine which excludes all cruise missiles and air breathing drones that simulate cruise missiles. Cruise missiles also have an air ram scoop on the belly, which is missing from the Kabot photo. If the object in the Kabot photo is a real object in the sky, the lack of the scoop and the bright plume argue that it is a rocket propelled missile, such as the Sea Sparrow. It is far from certain just what the object in the Kabot photo really is. Based on the sky gradations, the view is slightly east of North.

---

posted 05-09-2002 09:48 AM               

You said, "One thing I forgot to mention. Boeing took the exact plane to a secluded place in the desert and simulated the exact conditions in order to recreate the senario, but could not cause the fuel tank to explode. They even intensifying the conditions beyond those of twa 800 and still could not produce an explosion. NTSB was VERY upset boeing did this without their knowledge or partipation."

I am very interested in finding out more on this. Can you tell me where you got this information?

Thanks for your help.

posted 05-09-2002 05:05 PM               

Am I the only one that finds this ODD.

That being said, we all know that Kunz says that he is willing to change his mind IF provided scientific evidence that meets his exacting standards.

posted 05-09-2002 05:31 PM               

I assume you mean "couldn't care less".

And I am not in the least surprised that some people here don't bother to ask for verification. It is a hallmark of those folks to buy into anything anyone says without asking for the source. Or, as they might reply:

"Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full."

posted 05-09-2002 06:22 PM               

I found this image of the left side of flight 800 that is said to show evidence of a missile impact. According to the site I found it on, the missile penetrated the cabin of the jet at a shallow angle. Note what appears to be a hole wih scrape marks on the right hand side of the fuselage. It was also reported that traces of PETN residue were found on the seats in this section as well as explosive residue consistent with the combustion byproducts of an aluminum / ammonium perchlorate solid fuel rocket motor.

More information can be found here. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/CHART/chart.html

posted 05-10-2002 03:31 AM               

Someone Has Finally Talked
Reed Irvine
Jan. 31, 2002

Those who accept the government’s claim that the crash of TWA Flight 800 was caused by a fuel-tank explosion dismiss the evidence that the plane was shot down accidentally by missiles launched in a Navy exercise off the Long Island coast. They say that such an accident could not have been covered up because a lot of Navy personnel would have known about it, and some of them would have talked. One of them has finally done so.

He recently said in an interview that I recorded that he was on the deck of a Navy submarine very close to the crash site and saw TWA 800 shot down. He was brought to my attention by an acquaintance of his who told me that this retired Navy petty officer had said he was "underneath TWA 800 when he saw a missile hit it and the 747 explode overhead."

He had told this acquaintance that he had given a statement to the FBI when they returned to their port, and that the FBI had checked all their torpedo tubes and all their missile silos to make sure they had all the missiles on board that they had when they left port. Asked if there were other military vessels in the area, he had said, "Yes, several."

When Pierre Salinger, at a press conference in March 1997, declared that TWA Flight 800 had been shot down accidentally by a U.S. Navy missile, this former presidential press secretary, U.S. senator and ABC News correspondent was mercilessly attacked by his former colleagues. They accused him of peddling unsubstantiated Internet gossip. Salinger said that his information had been confirmed by a source who learned of the Navy’s involvement from a friend who had a son in the Navy.

The son was said to have personal knowledge that a Navy missile had downed the plane, but his father did not want to be identified, fearing his son would suffer retaliation for disclosing information the Navy was hiding. There are hundreds of Navy and Coast Guard personnel, as well as some FBI, CIA, FAA, NTSB and former White House employees, who know that the real cause of the crash of TWA 800 was papered over with a tissue of lies. Two of them, James Kallstrom and George Stephanopoulos, have made statements that indicate an official cover-up.

Stephanopoulos, a Clinton adviser who is now an ABC News correspondent, mentioned on the air a secret meeting in the White House situation room "in the aftermath of the TWA 800 bombing." Kallstrom, who headed the FBI’s TWA 800 investigation, told me – and I have this on tape – that three radar targets close to the crash site were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver.

We know they were submarines because the radar tracks disappeared when TWA 800 crashed.Our newly found talker was on one of those submarines. The Navy claims that it was at least 80 miles from the crash site, but he says it was very close, and that is confirmed by the radar tracks. In our taped interview, he was more guarded than he had been with his acquaintance. He said he didn’t want to do anything that might "mess up" his retirement.

He said he saw "something come up." "I don’t know what in the hell it was," he said, "but that’s what it looked ..." Not completing what he started to say, he said, "You know, something went up."

He estimated that it went up about a mile from his location, which was only a few miles from the shore. He said there were a couple of other subs nearby. When told that the radar tracks of all three disappeared because they submerged when the plane went down, he said, "Yeah, that’s what we did."

He acknowledged that a number of Navy vessels were heading for W-105, a large area of the ocean south of Long Island that is used for naval maneuvers. He said that nothing they did off Long Island was classified, but he was not comfortable in discussing it.

When I called him a few days later, he was scared to death. He feared the Navy would withdraw his pension if I reported what he had said. It was not possible to convince him that the Navy couldn’t do that. Not wanting to worsen his anxiety, his name and other details are being withheld as we try to get his and other interview reports that the FBI has withheld.

posted 05-10-2002 06:38 PM               

The Original CNN Story.

TWA crash investigator won't comment on explosives report
August 23, 1996

Web posted at: 2:00 p.m. EDT

(CNN) -- A key investigator of the crash of TWA Flight 800 declined Friday to
confirm or deny a CNN report that a trace of explosives had been found in the
wreckage of the passenger cabin.

Robert Francis of the National Transportation Safety Board also refused to
comment on a similar report in The New York Times.

The chemical PETN (pentaerythritol tetranitrate) was found on the right side
of the forward passenger cabin between rows 15 and 25, a source told CNN.

The Paris-bound flight exploded and crashed on July 17, killing all 230
passengers and crew aboard. Francis said the NTSB and the FBI were still
trying to determine if the explosion was caused by a bomb, a missile or
mechanical failure. "We need more evidence," he said.

PETN is often used in blasting caps or small detonators, explosives expert
Jack McGeorge said on CNN Friday during a live interview. But he said it would
not be the "majority explosive" in a bomb or missile warhead.

McGeorge described PETN as a "common" explosive that is "typically used together with other things." When investigators find residue of the "other things, they
will be a lot more confident" about what caused the explosion, he said.

There has been no credible claim of responsibility for the downing of Flight
800. "It hasn't moved an inch," one U.S. intelligence official told CNN,
referring to the investigation into a possible international link to the
explosion.

posted 05-11-2002 12:52 AM               

quote:

---

The final readings show chaos in the sky -- with airspeed dropping instantly by almost 200 knots, the pitch angle jumping five degrees, altitude dropping 3,600 feet in about three seconds, the roll angle going from zero to 144 degrees (the plane almost inverted), and magnetic heading changing from 82 degrees to 163 degrees.

The small vane that measures wind angle striking the nose -- situated on the left forward fuselage -- goes from 3 degrees to 106 degrees back to 30 degrees.

---

posted 06-01-2002 12:56 AM               

TWA 800 Findings Challenged
Reed Irvine
May 31, 2002

On the heels of the release of Accuracy in Media's award-winning documentary, "TWA 800: The Search for the Truth," FIRO, the TWA Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization, has petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to reconsider its decision on what caused the plane to crash.

The NTSB's rules provide for such petitions if new evidence has been found or it can be shown that the NTSB findings were erroneous. FIRO's 19-page petition, supported by 71 pages of attachments, can be found on FIRO's Web site, www.flight800.org. It shows that the NTSB's finding that the crash was initiated by a spontaneous explosion in the center-wing fuel tank was erroneous, pointing out that the investigators were unable to find any source of ignition that could have caused the empty fuel tank to explode.

The board's finding was based on an assumption, not evidence. Attachment II of the FIRO petition discusses an analysis of radar data by an FBI consultant who concluded that a component of the plane was blown out of its right side as soon as electric power was lost.

It was the first part of the plane to hit the water, a quarter of a mile closer to the shore than the next closest part. This cannot be explained by the NTSB's fuel-tank explosion theory.

FIRO charges that the NTSB withheld from the public and parties to the investigation the results of the analysis of a strange loud sound recorded on the cockpit voice recorder.

The tape was sent to England to be analyzed by sound experts at the University of Southampton to determine if the explosion was high velocity from an explosive device or low velocity from a fuel-air mixture. The conclusion reached by the British experts has been withheld by the NTSB on the grounds that it "would create a safety hazard."

Translation: it was high velocity.

Another important example of evidence that was classified secret and was withheld from the public was the discovery that metals of "unknown origin" were found in the bodies of many of the 230 who died in the crash on July 17, 1996. The FBI asked the Brookhaven National Laboratory to analyze one of 20 small pellets found in one of the bodies. They contained zirconium and barium, indicative of an incendiary device foreign to a Boeing 747 airliner. The FBI made no effort to determine the source of these pellets.

Retired Brig. Gen. Benton Partin, who helped design missiles for the Air Force, has said that the Brookhaven Laboratory's analysis of the composition of the mysterious pellets suggests to him that they came from a missile. The FBI never showed Gen. Partin or any other missile experts the Brookhaven analysis. They were content to describe the pellets as "origin unknown." Throwing a secrecy blanket over this evidence and failing to determine its source indicates that they knew that sourcing it accurately would undermine their claim that a spontaneous fuel-tank explosion caused the crash.

The Suffolk County coroner, Dr. Wetli, found shrapnel in 89 of the bodies he examined.

The FBI compiled an eight-page list describing the metal found in each body, classifying it secret. FIRO has sued under FOIA to obtain this list. The court ordered the FBI to release it, but the bureau is trying to get the order reversed on privacy grounds, claiming it invades the privacy of the dead. That is a spurious argument because the dead have no privacy rights, but FIRO is not arguing that point. What it wants is the description of the metal found in each of those bodies. It is believed that a lot of it will be pellets. The names can be redacted.

The penchant of the FBI and NTSB for classifying, hiding and altering the TWA Flight 800 evidence shows that they knew the evidence did not support their findings. Last summer the NTSB, headed by a Bush appointee, secretly sold the TWA 800 wreckage, except for the mock-up of the fuselage and one engine, to a recycler. The buyer had to promise to keep it secret to get the contract.

The NTSB says the secrecy requirement was to keep away scavengers and souvenir hunters. Baloney! Why should they care about that once the wreckage was sold? Because what they were really destroying was evidence that could have been used to prove that their explanation of the cause of the crash was wrong. Some of it was so revealing that the FBI would not let even the NTSB investigators see it.