posted 04-03-2002 10:25 PM               

"If that's true you should already be well aware of this site. It didn't just spring up overnight."
"Cut the self-righteous crap.Get real....or further conversation is useless."

just when i thought that we were going to have a nice, civilized discussion. oh well. i'll try to get real:~)

first, let me do what i always have to do when i respond on this web site. defend myself. i know that the rumors didnt just spring up overnight. i have heard most of them. but you linked me to an article that was about a zillion words long. at least give me a chance to browse through it to see if there is anything new. jeeez!!

aaaaanyway. i personally do not feel totally comfortable with the investigation. not necessarily because i feel that the NTSB is covering something up but because they never did reach a final conclusion. this in itself seems to indicate that they are not covering something up. if they were they could have just published some bogus cause and made up whatever evidence that they wanted. this didnt happen. they admitted that they dont know the ignition source.

a little background on me. i have a great interest in accident investigations. partly because it has to do with my career and you can learn a lot from them, and partly because they are like a good mystery story. i have researched many in great detail, TWA800 is not one of them. the reason for this is that i am drawn more to accidents that have a human element involved i.e pilot issues. i as a pilot can learn from those accidents. the pilots of TWA800 were not involved with the final outcome. they were helpless. the accident and the following reports were more engineering and mechanical in nature and its just not my cup of tea. a little boring. there is nothing in this investigation that is going to make me a better pilot.

but from what i do know.(finally, i can be a bit long-winded cant i). i am open do the possibility of foul play. but you have to understand that the NTSB's best guess (and that is what it is) is totally plausible. fuel tanks full of fumes have been a worry for a long time. if it was a terrorist attack, i would say that it was most likely an onboard bomb, less likely a shoulder mounted missile (stinger) and least likely a stray navy missile.

comments on each possibility
-bomb- possible that they have missed the signs of a bomb. the aircraft was at the bottom of the ocean. the amount of evidence found on PAA103 was miniscule(a small amount of C4 and part of a timer). maybe they missed it.

-stinger- again possible. but it the 747 was outside of the optimum envelope of the older stinger and near the limits all together. the FBI and NTSB evidently did not find any signs of a warhead explosion.

-stray navy missile- i'll be honest. after the accident i thought it was quite possibly a missile of one sort or another. a couple of years ago i read an article from someone who, in my mind, explained away all the points of the conspiracy crowd . i will try to find the article but it has been a couple of years. besides, there would have been a huge amount of sailors who would have witnessed this. you dont believe all military personal heartless, mindless robots do you. o.k. maybe the marines (jk) i love the jarheads.

my last point is on eyewitnesses. i have read literally hundreds of accident and incident reports. the one thing that has become very obvious is that they are incredibly unreliable. especially when they come from an untrained eye.(incidentally, i believe that this is part of the problem with chemtrails) it is not that the witnesses are lying or stupid. this has nothing to do with the problem. its just that they do not always accurately take in what they are seeing. this is a well known problem by the investigators. i should know, i have a close friend who is trained in accident investigation.

to sum up. who knows. i tend to lean towards the guess by the ntsb but i do not feel totally comfortable with it. in my mind there is still a ticking bomb in a fuel tank somewhere, and it doesnt involve C4 explosive.

if you didnt fall asleep during my riveting post, i would be interested to hear your feelings on the subject.

ps. if there are any other accidents that you would like to discuss let me know. hopefully i will have a little more knowledge.

posted 04-03-2002 10:54 PM               

rumors...sounds rather belittling of the extensive investigation carried out by a highly trained group of aviation professionals, who, unlike you, have PROVEN credentials.

Here's something you might have missed:

Someone has finally talked!

By Reed Irvine
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

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.

posted 04-03-2002 10:59 PM               

i dont know. i really dont know. but that is an interesting idea. i cant remember if they found all the LD3 (baggage) containers or not. but i believe they did. if a bomb was in a bag it would have probably been in one of these containers (there is also a bulk hold on a 747). if it was in a container there probably would have been pretty obvious signs of it. to me, a short circuited quantity sensor in the empty center tank is still the most likely culprit but i must admit that i didnt think of a shoe bomb.

posted 04-03-2002 11:18 PM               

i wasnt belittling anyone. until these rumors and theories are proven, they're still just that, rumors and theories. it is because of these rumors and theories that i still have an open mind regarding this accident. so give me a break. it seems that you scrutinize every little word of mine and then ATTACK. back off bud. i thought we were going to discuss this like adults. alright. i admit that i may also have trouble acting my age. but lets try.

now on to you article. that is the first i have heard of a navy witness. it is very interesting. but, just because it is on the internet doenst mean that it is factual. i really do not know much about the reporting web-site. are they "national enquire-ish". i am just asking. a lot of web sites try to come off as legitimate news agencies. one thing that does seem odd though. why would the FBI check the tubes on the sub? i may be wrong but the "silos" are for ICBM's and cruise missiles. neither are anti-aircraft in nature. the "tubes" are for torpedoes which are anti-sub and ship. i wasnt aware that any of our subs had anti-aircraft capabilities. but then again, most of my sub knowledge comes from Clancy novels.

ease up on me bit, throat. why did you feel the need to point out my lack of credentials? i agree with you. i am just a pilot. that is where most of my knowledge lies. what are your credentials? i guess we are just two normal guys (are you a guy?) discussing an interesting subject. why do you feel the need to treat me as an adversary?

posted 04-03-2002 11:53 PM               

I entered this discussion with you based on your quote: ""i am just a pilot who is concerned when he hears about americans targeting other americans."

I, too, take this seriously, and as far as I'm concerned that while jury may still be out, there is a growing body of damning evidence, which is not diminished by a self-proclaimed "pilot" saying everything looks "normal" to him.

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you decided to escape the previous thread.

And yes, I am very careful and explicit with the words I choose to use.

I can easily imagine that seeker, Duncan, CANEX or a housewife from Indiana would be quite conent to get "jiggy" with you.

posted 04-03-2002 11:56 PM               

If you remember, the incident occurred very close to the time of the Summer Olympics. Now let's just say that if they came out and said that the jet was shot down, what effect would it of had on the games? - They probably had no choice but to cover it up.

Also during the olympics, there was also a bombing. - And I'm not sure, but I think there was a report of another jet avoiding something that was thought to be a missle or something like that somewhere around the same time. - There was also an unconfirmed report concerning a satelite image that supposedly showed the missle and the jet but didn't have computer access at the time to see if I could find out anything about it. - There was suposedly also a report concerning some unusual activity in Long Island not long before 800 went down.

posted 04-04-2002 12:11 AM               

the reason i started this thread is because you asked me my opinion on TWA.

"which is not diminished by a self-proclaimed "pilot" saying everything looks "normal" to him.
It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you decided to escape the previous thread."

would you be happy if i buried my comments to YOUR REQUEST on the other thread. what difference does it make?

i am not a self-claimed pilot. i am an FAA certified pilot. there is a difference between someone who actually becomes educated and certified in a field than someone who tries to portray himself as an expert but has no background in that subject. take that as you may.

did you not read my post. i said that it was very possible that it may have been more than an accident. what part of my statement did you not understand. please show me where i said that everything about this looked "normal".

i entered this discussion with you because i thought you were genuinely interested in my opinion. you have shown yourself only interested in taking every opportunity to portray me and my opinions as something that they are not.

if you want to have an intelligent discussion with me thats fine. but if you just want to draw my in so that you can attack me, then see ya.

why did you ask for my opinion? did i not respond to you with respect. why do you find it so difficult to reciprocate?

posted 04-04-2002 12:22 AM               

if there was a cover-up, that sounds like a plausible reason for it.

for all that are here, i am very dubious of anything that happened under clinton's watch. i just have a hard time lumping everyone else with him. but, and are you listening SORETHROAT? IT IS POSSIBLE.

i am beginning to believe that even if i came out and said "hi, i am a pilot and i believe in chemtrails", you would still twist my words and call me an agent or some other non-sense.

i dont get it. i have been cordial, with maybe a little sarcasism, to everyone here (except maybe bobby boy, but he had it coming) and all i have gotten in return is a sh*tty attitude towards me.

thats fine. now i know what the tone is on this board i have a better idea how to deal with some of you.

in the immortal words of alice cooper, no more mr. nice guy!! nah, i cant help it, i am a nice guy. maybe eventually i can win some of you over.

posted 04-04-2002 02:01 AM               

its possible. i will look into when i have a chance. i am not a military expert but i do have a lot of interest in the military, and i fair amount of knowledge. granted, most of my military knowledge has to do with military aircraft. but, as a kid i always wanted to be a naval aviator so i have had always had a soft spot for the navy. i just dont remember ever seeing anything regarding subs launching anti-aircraft weapons. as a matter of fact, it wouldnt make a lot of sense. everything about a sub is designed for stealth. they dont want anyone knowing where they are. i would imagine the last place they would want to be is close to the surface launching missiles at enemy aircraft announcing loudly their exact location.

while i understand that the tubes have been redesigned to handle different types of torpedoes, making them anti-aircraft capable is a different story. it may be possible that there has been a new type of sub designed specifically for this purpose. but it would go totally against any traditional mission of the sub.

but its a good question. i'll see what i can find out. not only does it go to the credibility of the sailor who was quoted, but it is also kind of interesting.

posted 04-04-2002 02:33 PM               

737 fuel tank is focus of inquiry Thai jet destroyed by center tank, not bomb, NTSB suggests
Tuesday, April 3, 2001
By JAMES WALLACE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

A preliminary investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board indicates the center wing tank of a Boeing 737-400 exploded while the jet was at the Bangkok airport last month.

That the blast was not the result of sabotage, as first believed, would raise new and troubling questions about fuel tank safety on commercial airliners if the safety board's initial analysis proves correct.

The blast killed one flight attendant and was thought to have been an attempt to assassinate the country's prime minister, who was about to board the jet.

After a fuel tank explosion brought down TWA Flight 800 in 1996, killing all 230 people on the 747 jumbo jet, the safety board strongly recommended that inert nitrogen gas be pumped into jetliner fuel tanks to lessen the danger of an explosion. That recommendation is still under study by the Federal Aviation Administration and an industry group.

Although a fuel tank explosion is extremely rare, the NTSB has criticized the design of Boeing jets because air conditioning units are located directly under the center tanks, which can result in fuel vapors in the tanks being heated to explosive levels while the plane is on the ground.

That's what happened in the case of TWA Flight 800, a crash that the FBI initially thought was caused by a bomb. It is not clear if the air conditioning units were running while the Thai Airways 737 was parked at the gate and waiting for passengers to board. But not only did investigators find no evidence of a bomb on the Thai Airways 737, they told Thai authorities the fuel tank explosion bears striking similarities to one that destroyed a Philippine Airlines 737-300 at the Manila airport in 1990.

Laboratory analysis of the cockpit voice recorder from the Thai jet showed that the "noise signature" produced by the blast is very similar to the one produced by the center fuel tank explosion on the Philippine Airlines plane, according to people familiar with the investigation.The safety board's Robert Swaim, who is heading the investigation, recently briefed Thai authorities on the latest developments surrounding the March 3 blast.

Passengers had not yet boarded the Thai Airways Boeing 737-400 when the explosion occurred. Among the 149 passengers due to board was Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

The blast and subsequent fire, which gutted the jetliner within minutes, killed one flight attendant and injured seven others. Within hours of the blast, the prime minister said an explosive device had been used. He subsequently said authorities had found traces of a plastic explosive in the wreckage.

But Swaim has told Thai officials that the FBI could find no evidence of a bomb or any traces of an explosive residue on any items that have been examined.

Boeing is assisting in the investigation, but a spokeswoman said yesterday the company would have no comment on the ongoing inquiry. In 1998, the FAA ordered the inspection of older 737s after exposed electrical wiring was found in the wing fuel tanks of several jets. The Thai Airways 737 was delivered in 1991 and had logged 16,592 hours in flight.

Until now, the only other known explosion of a 737 center fuel tank was on the Philippine Airlines jet. The plane was being pushed back from the gate when the explosion occurred, killing eight people.

The NTSB has cited that blast, as well as others on different kinds of jetliners, to urge improvements in fuel tank safety. Last year, the board ruled that the crash of TWA Flight 800 was caused when an unknown electrical spark ignited flammable fuel vapors in the center wing tank of the 747, vapors that had been heated to explosive levels by air conditioning units under the tank...

The rest of the article can be found here. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/tank03.shtml

posted 04-13-2002 10:14 PM               

"No fuel tank explosion has ever occured in a 747, not one single one, before or after this event"

bob, there are lots of "firsts" in aviation accidents. as a matter of fact, the majority of accidents are "firsts". see, the idea is to investigate and fix the problem AFTER an accident. i am still not saying that i am 100% sure of the findings, i am just saying that your logic makes no sense.

for David,
i am not doubting you david. i am not a naval expert. but, i assume since you are talking about it that it has been declassified. if this is the case, do you have any literature or weblinks showing the modifications? once again, i am not questioning you, i am just interested.

are you sure that our subs run at 65 knots? the max published speeds for our attack boats are somewhere in the 40's i believe. also, i thought that it was pretty well accepted that while our subs are much quieter than the russians, their attack subs are faster than ours. are you telling me that their attack subs run faster than 65 knots?

posted 04-14-2002 09:25 PM               

"Under the sea, China now has four Russian-built Kilo-class diesel-powered attack submarines. According to Defense News, China soon may also acquire nuclear-powered subs armed with long-range cruise missiles. The Kilo is covered in sonar-absorbent rubber to avoid detection and can track five targets simultaneously. It is armed with 18 torpedoes, including a model that is guided by a built-in active sonar system.

According to a report in the London Times, these subs also may be armed with Soviet-built Shkval-E torpedoes. These computer-guided torpedoes are powered by rockets that propel them so fast they create an envelope of water vapor around themselves.

Moreover, the Kilo sub can also shoot down planes with surface-to-air missiles." http://www.humanevents.org/articles/05-07-01/carney.html

As far as the speed of our subs goes. The Virginia class subs have a speed of 25+ knots and carry tomahawk missles as well as MK-48 torpedos. The Seawolf class also has a speed of 25+ knots and have the same weapons as the Virginia class. The next in line is the Los Angeles class which has a speed of 23+ knots. The L.A. class also has the same weapons. There are also the Ohio-class/Trident ballistic missile submarines. They were originally equipped with 24 Trident I C-4 ballistic missiles however all of the newer subs are equipped with the Trident II D-5 missile system as they are built, and the earlier ships are being retrofitted to Trident II. Besides the Tridents, they carry MK-48 torpedos. The Ohio class has a speed of 20+ knots.

I also did a search of the general characteristics of the russian subs and the K-141 Kursk Submarine was one of their newest ones.

Nuclear-Powered K-141 Kursk Submarine

Physical and operational statistics:

Length – 154 m
Width – 18.2 m
Draft – 9 m
Displacement – 13,400/18,000 tons (14,700/23,860)
Speed -- 30 knots surface, 28 knots submerged (30/15)
Maximum submergence depth – 600 m
Hull – high-tensile steel
Number of compartments – 10
Crew – 130
Nuclear power plant - type OK-650, modified with two water-cooled power reactors; heat power – 2x190 megawatts, shaft power – 2x50, 50,000 hp
2 steam turbines (90,000 hp each); 2 seven-blade propellers

Weapons: 24 cruise-missile launchers. Missile – P-700/SSn-19 Granit; weight 6.9 tons, length 10.5 m, warhead weight 1,000 kg, range 555 km, speed Mach 1.5.

Missiles with nuclear warheads were removed from ships under the START Treaty

4 torpedo tubes (caliber 533 mm); 2 big caliber depth charges; (a variant – 8 torpedo tubes; 4 of which are of 533 mm caliber and 2 of 650 mm caliber). Unit of fire - 18 torpedoes.
Buoyancy reserve – 30%
*The sub is capable of lying on the seabed.
*Can stay at sea over 120 days

Place of manufacture – Severodvinsk

Base – Zapadnaya Litsa (Bolshaya Lopatka)

Number of this type of submarine built in Russia – 12

In 2001 there were 9 active submarines of this class (two are decommissioned and one sank).

After a little bit of searching I did find out that some of the LA CLASS subs are either being being equipped with or have VLS (Vertical launch systems) I found an article concerning the possibility of a VLS equipped sub shooting down flight 800.

The Cannister Launch System: Missiles from submarines.

Submarine Launched Missiles.
Was there a submarine inside the active warning zones?.

The Navy admits that the P-3 aircraft operating inside the active warning zones was engaged in an ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare) exercise involving the dropping of 39 sonobouys. Obviously, if one is dropping sonobouys, one is tracking a submarine. After all, what good is flying a plane back and forth over the water without a target to practice ON?

Initially denied, the existence of a submarine in the area was revealed in the Newsday article, but the name of the submarine has yet to be made known.

This raises the question of whether the missile that downed Flight 800 could have been a submarine launched SAM.

The Submarine Cannister Launch System.
Why Develop And Test An Aegis Guided Sub-launched SAM?

Prior to the present time, ASW aircraft have enjoyed a one-sided game. They get to take all the shots at the sub, and the sub has no choice but to run and try to hide.

Mounting a credible defense against ASW attack from the air presents serious difficulties for the submarine. Even when surfaced, the submarine's shape limits both the effectiveness and range of air-search radars. Surfacing immediately presents a target for a kill from the air in any event. Staying deeply submerged provides the greatest safety for the submarine, but means that the submarine cannot locate and track the attacking aircraft. But the Aegis radars, operating from a safe distance away, provide that function, painting the attacking aircraft, and signaling the cannister launch via VLF or ELF radio.

The advantage of the cannister system is twofold. Launched via conventional torpedo tube, the system can be retrofitted to existing submarines without vertical launch tubes (such as the older 688 boats), and the delay in the cannister's rise to the surface allows the submarine to clear datum, so that the actual missile firing does not reveal the submarine's true location.

Is A Sub-launched SAM Useful For Offensive Tasks?
Clearly a missile that is launched from a direction other than the vector to the Aegis radar greatly complicates the air defense problem of the enemy, by masking the threat direction. Launched from closer in, a sub-launched missile also cuts the reaction time of the enemies air-defense system.

These are two real tactical advantages that the Standard missiles, launched from the Aegis ship itself, do not have.

Submarine VLS.
Meanwhile, its worth noting that the enhanced type 688 submarine includes 12 vertical launch tubes forward of the sail which are admitted to handle Tomahawk and Harpoon. The Mark 41 surface launcher handles Tomahawk and Harpoon and Sea Sparrow and Standards with the same sized tube. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/SYS_CANNISTER.html

Just for the hell of it, I looked up the characteristics of the missiles carried by the US submarines.

The Sea Sparrow Missile

General Characteristics
Primary Function: Air-to-air and surface-to-air radar-guided missile
Contractors: Raytheon Co. and General Dynamics
Power Plant: Hercules MK-58 solid-propellant rocket motor
Thrust: Classified
Speed: More than 2,660 mph (4,256 kph)
Range: More than 30 nautical miles (approximately 55 km)
Length: 12 feet (3.64 meters)
Diameter: 8 inches (20.3 cm)
Wingspan: 3 feet 4 inches (one meter)
Warhead: Annular blast fragmentation warhead, 90 pounds (40.5 kg)
Launch Weight: Approximately 500 pounds (225 kg)
Guidance System: Raytheon semi-active on continuous wave or pulsed Doppler radar energy
Date Deployed: 1976
Unit Cost: $165,400
Inventory: Classified
Aircraft Platforms:
Navy: F-14 and F/A-18;
Air Force: F-4, F-15, and F-16;
Marine Corps: F-4 and F/A-18 http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/missiles/wep-spro.html

Tomahawk Missiles
General Characteristics
Primary Function: long-range subsonic cruise missile for striking high value or heavily defended land targets.
Contractor: Raytheon Systems Company, Tucson, Ariz.
Unit Cost: approximately $600,000 (from the last production contract)
Power Plant: Williams International F107-WR-402 cruise turbo-fan engine; CSD/ARC solid-fuel booster
Length: 18 feet 3 inches (5.56 meters); with booster: 20 feet 6 inches (6.25 meters)
Weight: 2,900 pounds (1,315.44 kg); 3,500 pounds (1,587.6 kg) with booster
Diameter: 20.4 inches (51.81 cm)
Wing Span: 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 meters)
Range: 870 nautical miles (1000 statute miles, 1609 km)
Speed: Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h)
Guidance System: TERCOM, DSMAC, and GPS (Block III only)
Warheads: 1,000 pounds or conventional submunitions dispenser with combined effect bomblets.
Date Deployed: 1986 - IOC; 1994 - Block III; 2003 - Tactical Tomahawk® http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/missiles/wep-toma.html

The Harpoon missile

General Characteristics
Primary Function: Air, surface, or submarine launched anti-surface (anti-ship) cruise missile.
Contractor: The Boeing Company
Power Plant: Teledyne Turbojet and solid propellant booster for surface and submarine launch.
Thrust: 660 pounds (approximately 299.38 kilograms)
Length: 12 feet, 7 inches (3.8354 meters) – air launched; 15 feet (4.572 meters) – surface and submarine launched.
Weight: 1,145 pounds (519.372 kilograms) – air launched; 1,385 pounds (628.236 kilograms) – submarine or ship launched from box or canister launcher.
Diameter: 13.5 inches (34.29 centimeters)
Wing Span: 3 feet (91.44 centimeters) with booster fins and wings.
Range: Over-the-horizon, in excess of 60 nautical miles.
Speed: High Subsonic
Guidance: Sea-skimming cruise monitored by radar altimeter, active radar terminal homing.
Warhead: Penetration high-explosive blast (488 pounds/224 kilograms)
Unit Cost: $720,000
Date Deployed: 1985 http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/missiles/wep-harp.html

posted 04-14-2002 10:43 PM               

thank you very much. like i said earlier, i get most of my naval info from tom clancy novels. i didnt think that we had anything that would do 65 knots + under or on the water.

i skimmed through the articles, do you know if our subs actually lauch conventional air-to-air missiles such as the Phoenix, AIM-120, AIM-7 or AIM-9? or is there a new, specially designed sub launched anti-aircraft missile? if so, i have never heard of it. unless i missed something, all the ordanance mentioned are not designed for this job (tomahawk, harpoon). and the sea sparrow doesnt mention the sub as a viable platform.

posted 04-15-2002 01:45 AM               

If you order this video.....
http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ID=39&ITEM_ID=161

.........and are not 100% convinced of a coverup of Flight TWA 800, then you may e-mail me and I will buy back this video from you including postage.

You might also want to check some of the facts presented on the video, for instance, the missing FAA radar data, but anyone who watches this video and has some knowledge of the facts of TWA 800 will be 100% convinced of a coverup.

I spent 300 hours researching TWA 800 before I watched the video and although there was only one piece of evidence presented I was not aware of(Hank Hughes testimony), it was still impressive to see this evidence in the way in which it was presented.

It amazes me that anyone with interest in this topic would not have already ordered this video. It is very well produced and sums up most of the pertinent facts in the coverup.

You can argue all day if it was a missile or a bomb, even though the evidence points to two missiles.

You can argue all day where the bomb, missile, or missiles, came from.

However, there is one fact that can't be debated by anyone who has done the research.

The fact is..... that there was an OBVIOUS coverup of the destruction of TWA 800 and not one person who has researched this could possibly believe otherwise.

The evidence is overwhelming. Period.

Brent

norrin38@aol.com

posted 04-15-2002 01:36 PM            

A lot of the more recent information regarding missiles in general and cruise missiles in particular can be found in either "Aviation Week and Space Technology" or "Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute". both are excellent magazines, and can be found at most libraries (I don't know if there are Internet versions available).

From what I have gathered, they are both more reliable than "Jane's" on those programs with which I am familiar, so I'd guess they'd be more reliable on the ones which I'm not familiar, too. Not that "Jane's" isn't good, but it's not quite as up-to-date and accurate as the two I mentioned.

Regards,

posted 04-18-2002 12:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by innocent bystander:
unless i missed something, all the ordanance mentioned are not designed for this job (tomahawk, harpoon). and the sea sparrow doesnt mention the sub as a viable platform.

---

I wouldn't have thought that a sub would have been a viable platform either especially when taking into consideration as to how they would detect an approaching plane and how to keep the missile from accidently locking on to a friendly target.

Of the three types of missles mentioned, the Navy's RIM-7M Sea Sparrow and the Air Force's AIM-7 Sparrow are radar-guided, air-to-air missiles with high explosive warheads and definitely has the ability to go after aircraft as is mentioned below:

"The versatile Sparrow has all-weather, all-altitude operational capability and can attack high-performance aircraft and missiles from any direction. It is widely deployed by U.S. and NATO forces. The Sea Sparrow is found aboard many U.S. and NATO surface warships."

http://www.military.com/Resources/EQG/EQGmain?file=SEA_SPARROW&cat=w&lev=2

The VLS system is basically a shielded water proof capsule that is ejected out of the top of a sub. - Once it reaches the surface, the top pops off the capsule and the engines ignite. The top of the capsule is that yellow circular thing that is in the picture of the missile that Krissa posted.

Above is a mock up of a standard VLS tube that is located on the Virginia class submarines. These capsules are capable of handling all 3 types of missiles and a sub can remain submerged while firing them.

Most people seem to point out that it would be very difficult for a Stinger to have brought down Flight 800 due to its limited range, however, a Sea Sparrow has a range of more than 30 nautical miles and could have easily done it. - That's what it was designed for.

posted 04-18-2002 08:04 PM               

One of the things amazing about Flight 800 is how nearly complete the reconstruction was...an astounding job by the parties involved.

One aspect that could not be clearly explained was inboard penetration, bending of fuselage, near the what I remember as being the point of attachment of the left wing (consistent with a missile penetration). An investigative reporter also found orange chemical on seat material consistent with solid fuel rocket propellant. He paid quite a price for this discovery and exposure.

posted 04-18-2002 08:20 PM               

In any case, if it was in fact a missile, it really isn't the Navy's fault, but ATC's fault. Warning areas are located off the coast for a reason....to avoid the hazards with firing live ordinance. Had flight 800 been hit by a missile, Air Traffic Controllers should have known that the area was "hot". It doesn't matter that the tests were "secret"....even if they are secret, you can still activate a warning area without telling the world what you are doing there.

I can believe an internal bomber. But I have a harder time believing it was a sub launched missile. The Navy shot down an Iranian airliner back in the 80s, and didn't have any heartburn admitting the truth. And I'm currently in training as an accident investigator, and yes, it's the #1 rule to remember....witnesses are extremely unreliable.

For example, one of the most infamous stories was the news interview conducted by a St. Louis television news station. A passenger was interviewed after their airplane had to do a ground abort because of an engine fire. The passenger told the story that they were scared because they looked out on the wing and saw the engine burning. Unfortunately for the passenger, they had been riding on a McDonnell-Douglas MD-80, which has the engines on the back, near the tail. No engines on the wings.

That example just shows how gross the reports can be. Sometimes they can be accurate, but usually they aren't.