DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
SECTION: REMEMBERING THE DEAD
SUBSECTION: TWA800 –– RESEARCH PROJECT
At this point, the consensus of research is that the TWA800 was brought down by at least 2 RAM missiles and gunfire, that they were fired probably by two separate foreign surface vessels in a NATO exercise and that their firing was probably provoked by a target drone.
The RAM missiles wouldn't impact leaving rocket fuel everywhere but rather would uncoil outside like super high speed barbed wire, ripping and shredding and eventually precipitating an explosion. Not only that, it would be the logical selection for an easy target close to a populated area. So far the wreckage information, the maps, the radar … all are fitting this hypothesis extremely well!
Freeper Sword_Svalbardt will be modifying the description which follows to conform with the new research. But, because the thread became very large, I felt it was necessary to reduce the information so other researchers could see how the effort developed and the reasoning behind each step.
As always, please post your corrections, edits, additions, observations, etc. Thanks to all Freepers and Lurkers!How the project began, a Lurker looks at TWA800:
Researchers note: Of the above listed ships these are RAM capable - USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS Hayler, and USS Detroit. Possible weapons plans for RAM may include the Ticondaroga class cruisers Leyte Gulf, and Vella Gulf; as well as the Arleigh Burke class destroyer Ramage. This may be a future add on for additional envelope protection from close in air attack. I might also add about the submarines: Montpelier is a San Juan Class SSN 751 which in reality is a modified SSN 688 i flight. Her sail planes have been removed and placed in boots near the bow for retraction for mooring, and under ice surfacing (similar to World War II submarines), since a SSN 688 sail planes do not allow it to perform under ice surfacings while performing Williamson turns utilizing BSY-1 sonar. Also, the SSN 751 class has VLS in the bow for Harpoon and Tomahawk, thereby clearing the torpedo room of encapsulated Harpoons and Tomahawks for a maximum load out of Adcap 48 torpedoes. The USS Atlanta is an SSN 688 class submarine. An additional note for all those under the belief that an American submarine downed the 747- couldn’t happen. There is no room for an anti air suite on any American sub. I would also like to point out an article in the Magazine "Proceedings", which indicated the threat to navy P-3 Orion aircraft from Soviet Submarines in the mid 1980's. Intelligence proved that this was false. The frigates are all gas turbine O.H. Perry class frigates, they are not slated to acquire RAM, since of the 63 that were built, only 10 remain. The various ship yards involved in construction built the Helo decks to various specifications. Similar to the movie Armageddon, "You are riding on one million moving parts put together by the lowest bidder." The last 10 are the only OHP’s rated for the H-60 Sea Hawk helicopter. Aircraft on the carrier Roosevelt include VF-32: F-14, VMFA-312: Marine F-18, VFA-37& VFA-105: Navy F18, VAW-126: E2C Hawk Eyes, VAQ-130: either A-6 Intruders or F-18 Hornets, VS-22:S-3 Vikings, and VQ-6 Navy EA-6B Prowlers (now adopted by the Air Force in lieu of the F-111 Raven).
I acquired this from Ian's website, now let me fill in the holes. The only RAM capable ships due to the latest OrdAlts ………… are:USS Hayler (DD-997) originally commissioned as the Shah of Iran class cruiser. Two Mk. 26 twin rails fore and aft (prior to OrdAlts), two 5"/54(127mm) Mk 45 gun mounts fore and aft, CIWS - 2 Phalanx 7 barreled 20mm Gatling gun fore and aft port and starboard respectively. After the OrdAlts, she was converted to VLS 61 birds in two separate launcher systems 122 birds total "hot on the rail" (this was to facilitate the advent of Tomahawk into the fleet), RAM was added later (in a single 21 round hex shaped box launcher on one of the stern quarters) since it is a modified Spruance Class (963) hull. ... would pose a serious threat to any surface or air target with nominal anti sub suite. USS Detroit (AOE-4), as a front line logistics ship Auxiliary Oiler Explosives, it would require not only Phalanx, but RAM as well to protect it from air or cruise missile attacks. She has no large guns, possibly 23mm chain gun mounted on main deck port and starboard. Elevation capability for this gun is not conducive for protection from air attack. This ship rarely steams alone considering it’s logistical value. USS Roosevelt (CVN-71) has a full complement of CIWS weapons which include both Phalanx and RAM. I won’t go into detail about Nimitz class Aircraft Carriers. Suffice it to say they are floating cities with 5,00 ships company deployed, and add an air wing with an additional 2,000 crew. They are the ultimate in conventional and special weapons power projection with the capability, not always, to launch 4 and land 2 (this of course is not simultaneously). They are nuclear powered, but carry enough JP-5 for aircraft fuel, and escorts to keep screens facilitated while deployed. It was also indicated that other ships were in the area, i.e. the Tarawa and a Wasp class gator freighter (LHD). Both these ships would carry RAM and Phalanx, and they also carry 5"/54 Mk45 guns fore and aft port and starboard kitty corner to each other. This is to facilitate NGFS (Naval Gun Fire Support) during amphibious operations ibn hostile waters. These ships would be in what the navy would call a PhibGru (Amphibious Group). They have all the equipment and technology in conjunction with their escorts to sustain an amphibious engagement, as well as direct various ships movements in their screen. Okay, I'm blathering, but these are all professional observations. I am still convinced after seeing the pictures of the aircraft after it was reconstructed, that the attack was made by a gun (at least 76mm, 114mm, or 127mm) while the aircraft was ascending 11,000feet to 19,000 feet. There were no scorch marks from missile propellant cooking off in the explosion, if a missile had brought down the aircraft through direct contact with the fuselage. This is what would have happened had a Sea Sparrow (equivalent to the air launched AMRAAM), Sea Dart, Standard SM1 or SM2. What am I saying? Somebody fired a gun while painting the target with either a foreign radar/laser designator, or Mk 86 director (if it were an American ship that fired). Again as I have said before, somebody in gun plot would have seen the IFF/UHF squawk of TWA800, if said squawk were present, and there would have been a whole crew of Gunners Mates (GM) and Fire Control (FC) men in there who would, or could have witnessed the incident. Some research via Janes, or a more competent periodical to determine what the British/Canadian, Dutch, German, and Italian capabilities are. I do know that they do not have the same NTDS capability. We use a system called Link 16. Suffice it to say complete digital data link with satellites, or any other unit on, under, or over the water. This would give a theater commander complete control of other ships weapons capacity. Some things I do know considering positioning of the countries: Germany commands the entrance into and around the Baltic. Most of their weapons systems are rapid response for close in ASW, Anti-aircraft, and anti-ship. They buy a lot of foreign produced delivery systems, but utilize their own electronics. Their sailors are quite competent, and very professional; the Brits and Canadians control the GIUK (Greenland, Iceland, United Kingdom) gap. They produce a lot of their own weapons systems as well as import. Each country runs on a restrictive budget due to powers of the socialist workers parties present who control budgeting of defense. Sound familiar? I won’t ride that horse as of yet; The Dutch, or better yet, the BENELUX nations do what they can with what they have, and can afford. They import quite a bit of delivery systems, and like the Germans’ design the search and tracking systems with the help of American companies; The Italians’ are quite self sufficient, considering their responsibility in the Med, Adriatic, and Ionic. They are the ones who developed OTO systems, which FMC/NSD in the United States has acquired licence to manufacture 127mm and 76mm guns. The Italians also developed the OTO Mat, in my opinion a better weapon than the Exocet, with a higher survivability rate in an EW environment. This was the weapon that went up for sale to the Syrians, Libyans, and Egyptians in the late 1970's during Jimmy Carters’ administration. >>>>>>>> I would like you to see some things to prove a point I have about this whole incident. Firstly, go to www.Shiloh.navy.mil, and bring up the photo gallery. Here you will see a variety of missile launch pictures. Look at the amount of fire and smoke a RIM 67 Block 2C variant emits when it is launched. This is what I mean by looking like Cape Canaveral. To see video, watch some of the file footage about the USS Vincennes. That was the Ticondaroga class cruiser that splashed the Iranian 747 in the Persian Gulf, with all the dead bodies aboard. That is some excellent file footage. I will elucidate about this later in the text. Back to the Shiloh, look at the high speed photo taken of the forward 5"/54 Mk 45 mount. Just forward of the muzzle is the first hint of over pressure from the gun being fired. Examine the little ploom in front of the bore, you will see the projectile traveling at about 4,100 fps. That little critter has a 9-13 nautical mile range when using the Mk 86 Radar system, which now brings me to another website. www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6636/zpics.html, in the area where the photos were contributed by Tony Diller, top row, third photo from the left. You will see two young men working near a radar director mount. Look to the right of the young man in the "higher" position. The white box is a camera. Everyone in gun plot where all the ships weapons systems are operated can see what the radar is looking at, in most cases. It is a low light, not SIT, high resolution camera. What would make this situation different than any other? The day: 17 July, 1996. The time: 2033. What is happening. The sun is low in the sky, and sinking in the west. TWA 800 is coming from the west, moving roughly east. Now remember, I said this was a low light television camera system. Not a SIT or CCD, it is restricted in reducing the amount of excessive available light transmitted through the objective of the optical system by field stops and a diaphragm. If you were to take one apart it would look very simple, unlike a SIT. A SIT, or Standard Image inTensification, is the same you saw, nearly, during the night triple A displays over Baghdad. They only work at night, and if, for example, a Mk 36, MK 37, or CSWS (Crews Served Weapons Sight) Mod 1 or 3 were used, the intensifier tube would "burn out". If a Mod 2 or 4 were used, the photonic sensor would cause the system to shut down from light over load. This system will intensify the light from one star 50,000 times. A CCD (Closed Coupled Device), on the other hand would survive the sun shot, but I am skeptical as to the visual acuity, when looking into the sun of this system. A FLIR (Forward Looking Infra-Red) like the one I helped install on board the USS Callahan(temporarily), would have enabled the crew in gun plot to view the target, and discern any discrepancies. This system is very similar to the Lantrin pods aboard those aircraft who recorded smart bomb hits during the Gulf War. One of our ships would not, could not have done this with a missile, or a gun if they had a FLIR system. On top of that Link 16, the Navy's NTDS system would have used its IFF/UHF (Identify Friend or Foe with Ultra High Frequency) pulse Doppler interrogation from the air search and fire control radars to determine if the target was a threat. If the system were operational. All the BQM drones in use today have the capability to look and maintain the radar frequency of any plane, within reason, hence the Air Forces stepped up use of F-4 drones for targets in excess of Mach 2. The interrogation would in turn place a notation near the radar blip on the operators screen, thereby positively identifying the target. Just wanted to show you some things. I am doing research on the foreign contingent that was present in W-105, can't get you a hull number, but I can get you a nationality and class. [The information gathered on the foreign contingent follows the Hypothesis] Hypothesis:
Also the elimination of Ferrat, the initial suspect in the bombing of Ron Brown's plane, a T-43A which is the military version of the Boeing 737 in Bosnia.Additional information: Scenario: Place: W-105, Activity: ASW / fleet training of Amphibious and screening elements of the US Navy and Elements of NATO primarily - Belgium, Canada, England, Germany, Holland, and Italy. The units were in either of the following situations: 1)A single battle group performing screening operations for a PhibGru. Lead ship would be American aircraft carrier, or more gator possibly the Tarawa, Saipan, or Wasp, with the Flag Officer being SOPA (Senior Officer Present Afloat). Any of the three previously listed ships have the capacity to maintain air control of the area. 2) Two battle groups performing separate tasks, one amphibious, the other ASW. 3) Two opposed Battle groups red and blue. In either of the three scenarios, the Battle groups have restricted air cover - only available E2C Hawkeyes or E3A AWACS. Escort ship’ mission is to perform ASW operations to clear corridor for amphibious ships, and maintain vigil for possible submarine / air launched cruise missiles. The combatants are given specific sectors to watch and maintain control of. Only one unit (most likely an aircraft) would have its radar on. This facilitates more stealth, and does not give away Battle groups position. All unit would have SLQ-32 in operation (ESM/ECM capable passive sensor). Hypothetically, these guys have been under prodigious radar threat and possible cruise missile attack all day. A variety of BQM-35's were probably fired earlier to check envelope threat protection, and give crews experience in live fire exercises. The BQM-35, to my limited knowledge, can be set up electronically to resemble virtually any threat platform. As far as radar cross section, I am uncertain. Combatants would be traveling at rates from very slow (1-5 knots while attempting to prosecute submarine targets) to racing at (18-30+ knots attempting to maintain PIM speed similar to a bounding over watch). If the Beaufort scale were low enough, freeway speeds could be evidenced by some of the American destroyers and cruisers. TWA800 is directed not around, or through a corner, but through the very center of W-105. This standard operations out of JFK international, more sloppiness from a "stressed out" union. Her progress was probably witnessed by Operation Specialists and Electronic Warfare specialists in CIC of any of the JOTDS (Joint Officers Tactical Data System linked to NTDS) capable ships (all American). If so where was the IFF/UHF squawk? This is a code that presents itself onto the radar screen when the target is painted by radar. Without a squawk, she is immediately labeled a threat - HOSTILE. Her approach and flight path are handed off to a combatant in control of that sector with the label hostile. The combatant then emits from its already warmed up radars, and paints the target. No IFF/UHF squawk verification.
Now think of the movie "Red Dawn", what did Powers Booth say to Patrick Swayze after Swayze' character asked how did this (invasion of the U.S.) all start? The Russians came in and landed via known transoceanic air routes.
Do you not think the CIA and the NSA have not explored this possibility? Then during some of the Intel briefs, ship / unit commanders probably discussed this possibility, with the theater commander. This method of attack was a probable. All unit commanders were probably briefed. Here comes a possible bogey out of a known transoceanic air lane. What do you do in there shoes?
You are going to be graded on your response. How are you going to react without putting New York, or any other large population center indirect threat from a large weapon like a Sea Dart, Standard RIM 67 SM1, or the SM2 a Block 2 C variant. STAY ON YOUR SHORT LEGS! Save the big stuff for a more threatening posture. This was going to be an easy kill.Your Radar has been off, he (the threat) doesn't know you are there, all he has is a navigation radar operating, something a threat would need in crowded airspace, and would lend to it looking like a jet liner. It fits, all of it. That plane died in less than 10 seconds after the first round was fired. I think all of this is entirely possible. To save ammunition on possible cruise missile release, the SM2's and SM1's are held for later. The only missile out of range at the 2.9 mile mark is Sea Wolf (British 6 km / 3.1 NM range) actual target range is 22,197 feet (the lineC drawn at 13500 (A) feet at 2.9 NM or 17,620.7 (B) feet - the hypotenuse) TWA 800 is at 37.4573 (37degrees 27 minutes 26.3 seconds), and traveling at about 300 knots (506 fps) Two weapons are used - either a 5"/54 (127mm) or 3"/62 (76mm) and RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile). The sequence works like this: The ship is at General Quarters, no personnel on deck, target is in the sun - no visual recognition. To confirm this, since we are near or on the anniversary of the incident, step outside and look west at 2033 (8:33 PM). Where is the sun? Possible bogey - possible Bear or Badger inbound 300 knots at Angels 13 and climbing. Researchers Note: 1) The ship would have her flank - port or starboard side to the target for more weapon access. 2) The interesting thing about radar cross section is the ability and inability to differentiate targets of the comparative same size. A radar operator can determine type of aircraft by cross section and IFF / UHF transponder code. A 747(E4B), DC-10(KC-10), L10-11, B-52, Tu-20 Bear, Tu-16 Badger, Tu-22 Blinder, Tu-26 Backfire, M-4/ 201, and IL-38 May are all large aircraft. Blinders and Backfires are very fast aircraft with a known attack characteristics The situation is weighed by the CO. Obviously part of the exercise. He would have waited until civilian aircraft are clear, hence the short range. Prior to authorizing weapons free, the Commanding Officer would order a fire solution.
The funny thing about a fire solution and a moving target is the thought of firing into empty space. Where you are aiming there is nothing, but when the projectile or missile arrive at the intended location, the target has arrived. So the intent is for the target to fly into the path of the projectile or missile.
A firing solution is enabled.
Authorization to fire is given to the weapons boss by the CO.
If it were an American Spruance Class destroyer, or Ticondaroga Class Cruiser, using two 5"/54 guns - welcome to hell!
Automatically, two 5" rounds come up from their forty round loaders, and are fused on their respective fusing trays where the proximity round is enabled. This allows a chip with a frequency receiver tuned in the microwave spectrum to be enabled.
Rounds are then chambered, locked, and safeties cleared.
The Weapons Boss gives the order to shoot.
Written specifications indicate a 5"/54 can shoot with a cyclic rate of approximately 35 rounds per minute. In sustained fire, this is taken down to about 20 rounds per minute, or 3 rounds a second for each respective gun. Even though the gun is automatic, the loaders have to be loaded by hand, and crews can get exhausted easily if a lot of rounds are to be punched at one target.
0 point - TWA800 is at 22177.4 feet, or 3.65 NM out traveling at 300 knots or 506.3 fps. First 5" round out from mount one (forward mount). The 5" has a muzzle velocity of 2650 fps, this corrects my previous 4100 fps.
One one thousand - TWA800 is now 506.3 feet closer(21671.1 feet or 3.57 NM out) First RAM round out. RAM travels at two times the speed of sound. At sea level this is 2x760mph or 2565.5 fps. It is a radar beam rider (SM1). As it closes with the target it acquires the targets’ infra red signature with its Stinger head. Then it follows the beam to the target. If the weapon is unable to reach the target, the onboard CPU will plot CPA and the Stinger head will take over guidance. Its range is 12km or 7.5 NM.
Two one thousand - TWA800 is now 21164.8 feet, or 3.48 NM out. Second 5" round out, this time from mount 2 (after mount)
Three one thousand - TWA800 is now 20658.5 feet, or 3.40 NM out. Second RAM round out. A two second separation would be hard to see at a distance.Four one thousand - TWA800 is now 20152.2 feet, or 3.32 NM out.
Five one thousand - TWA800 is now 19645.9 feet, or 3.23 NM out
Six one thousand - TWA800 is now 19135.6 feet, or 3.15 NM out
Seven one thousand - TWA800 is now 18633.3 feet, or 3.07 NM out
Eight one thousand - TWA800 is now 18127.0 feet, or 2.98 NM out. At 8.38 seconds the shipboard fire control computer has already plotted CPA, and sends a microwave carrier to the first shell - Detonate (you didn’t think they were that smart did you?)! 70-140 one inch cubes made of tungsten carbide blast from the shell. To be fair, it is obvious only a certain percentage of the cubes can reach the target due to position in the casing itself and spread, but like an armor piercing round, this proximity shell has a shaped charge. It dispenses the cubes in a longitudinally elliptical shape toward the flight axis of the target.
The tungsten carbide cubes find TWA 800 ripping into the light aluminum skin of the underbelly of the aircraft on the left side just aft of the wing center cross section. After the skin, the very hard cubes (which are spinning rapidly) find the center section stringer construction of the aircraft. This is housed in the longitudinal, and vertical framing of the aircrafts structural framing, and contains, I believe, the bulk of the aircrafts manifolds for the fuel, hydraulics, and lube oil lines that deliver badly needed lube oil for cooling pumps that actuate wing control surfaces using hydraulic fluid, as well as fuel, and lube oil pumps, as well as cutting needed electrical power and data transmission lines. The cubes then tear at the floor beam structure, as well as the front spar fuselage main frame. Then they perforate the main centerline fuel tank, finally entering the passenger compartment.
Inside the cabin: Passengers are amazed, fear and death rip through the fuselage as stray cubes cause holes to appear in the planes skin. A passenger speaking to someone could have been torn to shreds, decapitated, maimed, or watched the same happen to the person next to them or across the aisle way. The flight engineer recognizes a loss in fuel, hydraulic, and lube oil pressure and attempts to check his instruments. The pilot and copilot attempt to maintain control of the aircraft.
Nine one thousand - TWA800 is 17620.7 feet, or 2.89 NM out. 9.49 seconds into its flight the first RAM detonates into the flight path of the seriously wounded 747-400. (If you were there, does this sound about right?). The warhead of RAM is a type of blast fragmentation warhead known as "expanding rod". Simply put, it is the equivalent of very hard barb wire being unreeled and slamming into the target at 2565.5 fps.
Ten one thousand - TWA800 is 17114.4 feet, or 2.82 NM out. At 10.08 seconds the second 5" round detonates at CPA causing more damage to the underbelly of the aircraft, seriously robbing the aircraft of any chance at survivability.
Eleven one thousand - 11.19 seconds, the second RAM detonates at CPA. Sending the deadly expanding rod from the blast fragmentation warhead into the left wing of the now dying 747-400. Sparks from the shearing action cause severely leaking fuel from the central and left wing tanks, which has readily mixed with air to explode violently. The air flow around the now non aerodynamic structure once called an airplane causes the wing to be sheared off at 7700 feet. After the last RAM detonation more damage is created. The plane is not responding to controls. By now the structurally weakened aircraft has lost the fight for its life. The bottom strengthening features are stressed beyond usefulness, or sheared from the wind tearing at the freshly formed holes in the aircraft. Major structural damage now causes severe fatigue. High velocity wind forces the nose section over the back of the aircraft. The "g" load on that section causes the flight crew and passengers to black out, or the impact with the back of the aircraft kills all those on the upper deck, and flight deck area of the 747. TWA 800 is dead and falling rapidly into a watery grave. With such a velocity the plane would dismember itself on impact with the water.
Twelve one thousandThe lucky ones were the ones killed before the plane started to fall. They did not have to endure the hell the remaining passengers went through. This plane was destined to die, they were set up in every way possible. Testing the hypothesis: To discern the angle of attack, the altitude of TWA800 had to be known. That actual information is not available, but transcripts indicate the aircraft was in transition from 11,000 feet. Ian Goddards’ web page indicated radar sightings between 13,000 and 14,000 feet respectively. Taking it upon myself I chose the mean - 13,500. Looking at a triangle, this would be the opposite side, or O. The distance from TWA800 was acquired by statements and radar output data to be 2.9 nautical miles or 17,620.7 feet from the nearest ship, this would be the adjacent side, or A. Now take into account the closure rate of the projectiles and the missiles. They have to be in the aircrafts flight path within hundredths of a second to be effective. Precision is the key. So you can visualize the guns tracking their target and the mounts training in azimuth while the bores adjust in elevation. The RAM launcher would do the same thing. True distance can be determined using either the Pythagorean theorem, or other trig functions, I checked all four, they are close (within .0001 of 1 degree, or 0.36 arc seconds), this would be the hypotenuse.
Pythagorean Theorem : A^2+B^2=C^2
Then I performed a parametric formula for ballistic trajectories.
Parametrics is a form of algebra using time as a controlling function f(g) and g(h), and is based on the formula: Rate X Time = Distance. This has to be done in two planes: x & y. x being the horizontal, or range away from the ship, and Y being the vertical, or altitude.For x I substituted xt, for y I substituted yt. Then I determined initial velocity, or V sub 0 (V0)
76mm - 3700 fps note that rate of fire for a 76mm or 3"/62 is 80 rounds per minute so the time line is shorter in that aspect
114mm-2971.8 fps (4.48")
127mm-2650 fps (5"/54)
Then I determined my angle:
S = O/H = .608171116827 or 37.4574
C = A/H = .793807466539 or 37.4572
T = O/A = .766144364299 or 37.4573
If the tangent is used as a zero point, the differences in the sine and cosine are .36 seconds in arc
O = 13,500
A = 17,620.7
H = 22,197.7
XT = (V0 (cosine theta))t note: theta is the angle in question
T = 1 = x = 2103 feet, y = 1595.7 feet
T = 2 = x = 4207.2 feet, y = 3159.3 feet
T = 3 = x = 6310.8 feet, y = 4690.96 feet
T = 4 = x = 8414.4 feet, y = 6190.6 feet
T = 5 = x = 10517.95 feet, y = 7658.3 feet
T = 6 = x = 12621.6 feet, y = 9093.93 feet
T = 7 = x = 14725.1 feet, y = 10497.6 feet
T = 8 = x = 16828.7 feet, y = 11869.2 feet
T = 8.376 = 17619.7 feet, y = 12376.7 feet
Researchers note: note the y variance in relation to the altitude of TWA800. 13500 - 12376.7 = 1123.3 feet. Using rate X time = distance formula, and algebraically maneuvering the formula to: distance / rate = time. The time it takes for the tungsten carbide cubes to impact is 1123.3 / 2650 = 0.4 seconds. This explains the amount of area damaged in the blast
T = 8.7 = x = 17615.9 feet, y is not a determiner in this weapon (RAM) since it is guidedAll missiles with the exception of the British Sea Wolf were in range. Here is a table that will enable you to eliminate possible guesses: Sea Wolf: 6 km or 3.1 NM RAM 12 km or 7.5 NM 76mm 18.5 km or 10 NM 114mm 21.3 km or 11.0 NM 127mm 24.1 km or 13.0 NM Note. The US has come out with, and will be deploying the ERGM (Extended Range General Purpose Munitions) This is some very smart stuff, and will be coming with new bores 5"/62. Existing is 5"/54 or 22.5 foot long bore unbraked, new will be 25.8 foot long bore unbraked. Sea Dart 40 km or 21.6 NM would look like Cape Canaveral during launch, and there is a second stage RIM 67 Block 2C Really look like Cape Canaveral, and everybody and their pet dog would have seen it. This is fire and forget stuff, designed to peg targets way out there with complete data link (link 16 capable) with IFF/UHF interrogation capability for new target reassignment. The navy was dropping scuds like it was nobody's business during the Persian Gulf War, and they are not speaking because of LEAP (light Experimental Antiballistic Missile)- it looks the same. Small stuff was used to facilitate NATO doctrine. IFF/UHF was disabled to make target and weapon tactics discretionary. I can launch one of my missiles in a crowd with one hostile target, and not hit one of ours. Amazing! The amount of damage to the hull, or fuselage of TWA800 resembles that of 5", or 3". Just the same, the numbers add up. The closest ship could most likely be your gun shooter, because the numbers match. The parametric XT can be used to determine time to target any missile from any ship using x. Note: Stinger was not used. That would have resulted in an engine hit! Did not occur. Why a gun, that would have caused the most traumatic amount of catastrophic damage in a short period of time. Sufficient to disable a plane in seconds, and rob it of ALL electronics, and fluidics. This plane was sliced and diced like k-tell slices and dices Julien fries Some more salient points: 1) Why did RAM not lock onto the engines? The processor noted rate of closure and attitude of Infrared emmitance. CPU deducted inability to close on heat source so plotted CPA. 2) Why did damage occur where it did? This is the bulk of the radar cross section of the aircraft! 3) Why the extent of damage? The blast fragmentation cubes are tungsten carbide. A nice Rockwell hardness of at least 35 case hardness, most likely 42 or 45 case hardness. Compared to aluminum, this would be like a hot knife to butter, but the cubes were slowing and spreading like a shotgun blast. Hardened aluminum in the frame of the aircraft would cause redirection of the cubes after shearing, and cause more damage. 4) Other aircraft in the "zone", why not them? The IFF/UHF transponder on the navigation radar of the 747 was disenabled. There were other aircraft in the area, as I have said before, modern equipment is very discretionary.
Range: 8320 miles
380 to 450 passengers
Four GE or Rolls Royce Turbofans
Specs on RR: RB211-524G 56,000 shp each
Maximum take off weight: 875,000 pounds
Center line tank holds 16,990 U.S. gallons
Cabin pressure: 9 psi
Wing span (fully fueled) 213 feet
Length: 231 feet 10 inches
Height: 63 feet 5 inches
Maximum cruise speed: 612 mph
Service ceiling: 45,000 feet
In a February 1970 test, two units were sacrificed for destructive testing. One test was to vertically deflect a wing upward 29 feet. Stress on the wing was at 116.7% snapping the front spar in the main frame. This is 3.75 g’s or 174% of maximum wing load. Could an explosion in the wing tank, with the over pressure the U.S. FAA / NTSB indicated reenact this same test. In fact tests were done after the Lockerbie crash. It took explosives to do the damage our government is suggesting. Hope that tickles your funny bone Kalstrom.How this would be possible: In addition to the hypothesis, think of this:
The Royal Navy was embarrassed with the loss of the HMS Sheffield to an Exocet during the Falkland Island conflict. You will see that they made a major upgrade in missile and CIWS systems. See Royal Navy contingent for more information on this.
The United States was severely embarrassed by the Iraqi’s when they launched two Exocet missiles from Mirage F1's. It was done late at night. Typically, senior personnel with the experience to see the "split" hand this watch over to junior personnel. I heard things like, " well that’s how I learned.", or "You need to get qualified on this watch, a mid watch will help.", or "late for watch again eh? A set of mid watches ought to cure you of that." How many sailors out there have heard that crap before?
Since the Persian Gulf is a very active airway / waterway, the Stark could not have her NTDS system lit off. She would have shot at everything, from Dhows to barges. A crew had to watch the radars closer. This under trained watch did not see the split as the weapons left the aircraft. And since the radar cross section is very small, they could not be tracked. That is why a missile could not be seen on radar. Ram is very small. Two women can easily load the 21 round launcher in minutes.
In contrast, the Ticondaroga Class Cruiser Vincennes was able to track the 747 leaving Bandar-Abbas while it was taxiing from the apron to the runway. The difference between the Stark and the Vincennes is the radar suite. The Vincennes carries SPY-1, the Stark does not. The CO, Captain Rogers, of the Vincennes interrogated all craft that closed within 50 miles. The interrogation included the warning that the Vincennes was steaming while escorting flagged tankers, and had selected a 25 mile safety zone where it would eliminate all who entered.
This would suggest the swift attack upon anything not carrying a IFF / UHF return while in a training area while under going a firing exercise.
On another note, organized crime is at play. Why?
Some guy working for the any of the unions in New York, is under the thumb, or wants a favor from any of the many mob bosses there. He is capable of disabling the aircrafts IFF/UHF transponder. The process is quick and easy without disabling the aircrafts navigation radar. Disabling the radar would have been a flight gripe, and the airplane would have been down. With the transponder disabled, the crew of the aircraft would never know.
Torpedo:Nixie towed acoustic decoy Aircraft: 2 Sea King helicopters Ships' Boats: One Rigid Hull inflatable, speed 30 knots; One Zodiac inflatable The four destroyers of the Iroquois Class were originally commissioned in the early 1970s. At that time they were primarily designed for anti-submarine warfare. However, the entire class has been undergoing an extensive refit program under the Tribal Class Update and Modernization Project (TRUMP). As they rejoin the fleet, they have become command and control ships with a significant area air defense capability. The Iroquois Class ships are powered by gas turbine engines with a maximum speed in excess of 29 knots. Their cruising range is 7250 kilometers at 20 knots. The complement of each ship is 255, including 23 officers, plus 30 aircrew. Each ship in this class is capable of embarking two maritime helicopters. As part of the modernization process, the Iroquois Class received significant improvements to weapons and sensor systems. Installed were vertical launch missile systems, a rapid fire gun and a close-in weapon system, as well as state-of-the-art radar and electronic systems. HMCS Algonquin was the first ship to undergo the changes, and was recently tested as flagship to the Commander of NATO's Standing Naval Force Atlantic in the Adriatic Sea, where the squadron was operating in support of United Nations resolution involving the former Yugoslavia. HMCS Algonquin was recently replaced by HMCS Iroquois. Sorry, no information on radars or ESM/ECM systems…….These ships are a VLS version of the O.H.Perry Class fast frigate. They are rigged primarily for ASW, and Antiair. Predominately used to maintain a clear fisheries waterway for their nations vast fishing fleet. Halifax Class Frigate 330 HMCS HALIFAX 331 HMCS VANCOUVER 332 HMCS VILLE DE QUEBEC 333 HMCS TORONTO 336 HMCS MONTREAL 337 HMCS FREDERICTON 339 HMCS CHARLOTTETOWN 340 HMCS ST. JOHN'S Characteristics Displacement: 4,750 tonnes Dimensions: Length: 134.1 meters (439.9 feet) Beam: 16.4 meters (53.8 feet) Draft: 4.9 meters (16.1 feet) Machinery: 2 General Electric gas turbine main engines, 1 Pielstick diesel cruise engine, 2 shafts, 46,000 shaft horsepower Speed: 30+ knots Complement: 225 officers and non-commissioned members Armament: Missiles: 16 vertically launched Sea Sparrow anti-air missiles, 8 Harpoon anti-ship missiles Torpedoes: Mk 46 MOD5 launched via Twin Mk 32 torpedo tubes or SEA KING helicopter Guns: MK2 Bofors dual purpose 57mm, Phalanx 20mm Close-in weapons system, 6x.50 caliber machine guns Countermeasures: Air: 4x6 barreled Chaff/Infra Red launchers Torpedo: Nixie towed acoustic decoy Aircraft: 1 Sea King helicopter Ship's boats: One Rigid Hull inflatable; speed 30 knots, One Zodiac inflatable At the leading edge of multi-role frigate capability in the world, Halifax-class ships carry a sophisticated array of weapon and sensor systems, including Harpoon long-range surface-to-surface missiles, Sea Sparrow surface-to-air missiles, a 57mm rapid-fire gun, a 20mm close-in defensive gun system, torpedoes, navigational and weapon-control radars, and sonar and electronic warfare systems. The ships make extensive use of Canadian-designed computer technology for integrated propulsion and machinery control, communications and combat systems. Each ship is equipped to operate with one Sea King helicopter. Capable of speeds in excess of 30 nautical miles (55 km) per hour, Halifax-class frigates have a normal operating range up to 11,000 kilometers. Each ship has a crew of 225 (or 195 without helicopter detachment embarked). This is what the Canadians could afford, and for what they bought, they acquired a nice little system. Compare some of the Italian units to these guys. Royal Navy
Countermeasures:2 x Corvus launchers, 1 x Graesby Mk.128 towed decoy Search: 1 x Type 965 AKE-2 air search radar 1 x Type 992Q surface search radar 1 x Type 162 classification sonar 1 x Type 2016 active sonar Fire Control: 2 x Type 909 fire control radar Navigation: 1 x Type 1006 Navigation radar Communication: SCOT SATCOM satellite system ( as available ) Countermeasures: Type 670 ECM, UAA-2 ECM ( as available ) Batches 1 & 2 post-Falklands Gun: 1 x 1 x 114 mm Mk.8 DP
2 x 2 x 30mm GCM-A02 AA, replaced by: 2 x 6 x 20mm GE Phalanx CIWS
4 x 1 x 20mm GAM-B01 AA or; 2 x 1 x 20mm GAM-B01 AA with; 2 x 1 x 20 mm Oerlikon AA
Missile: 1 x 2 x Sea Dart GWS 30 SAMAnti Submarine: 2 x 3 x STWS Mk.2 553mm tubes Mark 46 or ( as available ) Stingray A/S torpedoes
Aircraft:1 x Westland Lynx HAS.3 or 8 Countermeasures 2 x 8 x SRBOC CM launchers ( in Cardiff, Birmingham & Glasgow )
4 x 6 x Sea Gnat CM launchers ( in others )
1 x Graesby Mk.128 towed decoy Search1 x Type 1022 air search radar ( as available ) 1 x Type 996 3-D search radar ( as available ) or ; 1 x Type 992Q surface search radar ( in Birmingham ) 1 x Type 162M classification sonar 1 x Type 2016 active sonar or; 1 x Type 2050 active sonar Fire Control: 2 x Type 909 fire control radar Navigation: 1 x Type 1006 navigation radar, replaced by: 1 x Type 1007 navigation radar Communication SCOT SATCOM satellite system Countermeasures Mk.670 ECM ( Batch 1 only ),Mk.675 ECM ( Batch 2 only ) UAA-2 ECM Batch 3 post-Falklands Gun: 1 x 1 x 114 mm Mk.8 DP, 2 x 2 x 30mm GCM-A02 AA, replaced by: 2 x 6 x 20mm GE Phalanx CIWS, 2 x 1 x 20mm GAM-B01 AA, 2 x 1 x 20 mm Oerlikon AA Missile: 1 x 2 x Sea Dart GWS 30 SAM Anti Submarine: 2 x 3 x STWS Mk.2 553mm tubes Mark 46 or ( as available ) Stingray A/S torpedoes Aircraft: 1 x Westland Lynx HAS.3 or 8 Countermeasures: 4 x 6 x Sea Gnat CM launchers 1 x Graesby Mk.128 towed decoy
DEC Laser dazzle sightsSearch 1 x Type 1022 air search radar 1 x Type 992R surface search radar, replaced by 1 x Type 996 3-D search radar ( as available ) 1 x Type 162M classification sonar 1 x Type 2016 active sonar or; 1 x Type 2050 active sonar ( as available ) 1 x Type 2100 optronic system Fire Control: 2 x Type 909 mod-i fire control radar Navigation: 1 x Type 1006 navigation radar, replaced by: 1 x Type 1007 navigation radar Communication: SCOT SATCOM satellite system Countermeasures: UAA-2 ECM, Mk.675 mod-ii ECM Type 22 Batches 2 & 3 class Frigate Individual Specification Batch 2 Boxer F92 awaiting disposal Beaver F93 stripped and awaiting breaking-up Brave F94 awaiting disposal London ex Bloodhound F95 awaiting disposal Sheffield F96 In service Coventry F98 In service Batch 3 Cornwall F99 In service Cumberland F85 In service Cambeltown F86 In service Chatham F87 In service Type 22, Batch 2 lead-ship F92 HMS Boxer. Note: flared and the much smaller flight deck. Also, Type 910 tracking radar / TV fire control systems for the SeaWolf compared to the Type 911 double radar system of the later ships. Type 22 Batch 2, F95 HMS London. London is the lead-ship of the third sub-group, which have updated fire control and computer systems, and an enlarged flight deck, capable of handling Lynx, SeaKing or Merlin helicopters. Type 22 Batch 3 frigate, F85 HMS Cumberland. Although it shares the hull-form and after superstructure of the Batch 2, the forward superstructure, electronics, armament and propulsion have all been updated. The most noticable change is the addition of the Mark 8 114mm DP gun forward. The forward superstructure now also carries Sea Archer passive IR surveillence domes, RGM-84 Harpoon anti-shipping missiles and a Signaal-GE Goalkeeper 7-barreled 30mm CIWS. The Sea Wolf has been upgraded, a larger hanger is fitted, new single DES DS-30B 30mm cannons replace the older twin Oerlikon / BMARC GCM-A02 guns of similar caliber and updated ECM arrays are carried. These two batches of the Type 22 frigate came from experience of the first batch of Type 22 frigate, and lessons learned from the Falklands campaign. Originally, it had been intended to build seven Type 22 frigates to a common design. Four of these were completed, as Batch 1 Type 22 frigates - the Broadsword class. The Batch 2 frigates draw on experience of the Batch 1 before the Falklands campaign, and are thus not as refined as the Batch 3, which draws on experience from the Falklands. The main fault that was found with the Batch 1 was a lack of size, and a poor rough weather performance. Bear in mind that there was no combat experience before this design was drawn up, so some flaws remained in the design. The second batch was enlarged, mainly around the bows. The original low, blunt bow was changed to a well flared, lengthened design, with much finer ends and a far more rakish and handsome stem. A flared bulwark was added around the bows, to further improve sea keeping. This new design allowed for greater speeds to be reached, more economical steaming, and the bows were much drier than previously. To include the extra space needed for additional equipment, accommodations and growth, 41 feet was added to the length overall, with a larger, raised superstructure. Beam and draft remained unchanged, and thus speed was not adversely affected, and, thanks to the streamlined bows, actually increased. The Batch 2 was built in three sub-groups, Boxer and Beaver formed the first, Brave the second, and London, Sheffield and Coventry the last. Boxer and Beaver had little new technology incorporated into the design, and the replacing of the single 40mm Bofors guns with two, twin 30mm GCM-A02 cannons was the only change in armament. Brave was a step between the two groups, and while she had the hull of the first two, she had improved systems, such as the Type 967M radar instead of combined Type 967/968, Type 911 dual radar instead of Type 910 radar / TV, and a feature unique in the Batch 2, GOGAG instead of COGOG propulsion. Instead of having separate low speed, economical turbines and high speed, rapid acceleration turbines, Brave had a lower power and a medium power set of turbines. Full speed could be reached by running both sets of turbines at once. Since full speed running is much less used in modern tactics ( a more subtle, low speed approach being favored in these days of stealth ), the prospect of lugging around a set of very large, heavy and complex Olympus turbines, and their reduction gearing, which are rarely used is not such a good trade-off as it once was. It is much more economical to trade off a few knots of speed for more low-speed economy and smaller and lighter Spey turbines. By running the Spey and Tyne turbines at once, the 50 000 shp of a pair of Olympus turbines can almost be matched. This power setup was copied in the Batch 3, but the low power turbines were up-rated and the higher power turbines down-rated, so although there is no net loss in maximum power, economy and high speed performance is improved. The last three were not only completed to a large and improved design, but also had a new naming pattern. Instead of the 'B' names of their predecessors, they were named after British cities, as the
Type 42 are, and the names of the Coventry and Sheffield, lost in the Falklands were perpetuated, along with the County class HMS London. Along with the fire control improvements of the Brave, the last three had an enlarged flight deck and more rakish stem, and were consequently 4.5 m longer. This change was to allow for the operation of the much larger, more powerful and capable Sea King helicopter. This is more adapted to ASW than the ( nevertheless excellent ) Lynx, and can also carry the much more powerful and long ranging Sea Eagle compared to the Lynx's Sea Skua. This said, it is not as fast, sprightly and maneuverable as the Lynx, and only one can be carried. This enlargement also allows the last three Batch 2 to accommodate a Merlin helicopter, although they will not be in service long enough to thoroughly work up with this helicopter. The Type 22's have the largest flight deck / hangar capabilities of all British escorts. As stated before, the Batch 3 design was completed with post-Falklands experience. As such, the main lesson of this campaign was incorporated; the lack of powerful CIWS and light gun AA in British ships, and the lack of a gun in the Type 22 Batch 1 ( and 2 .) Interestingly, to that point, at least large caliber gun had always featured in Royal Navy escort designs, and the Type 22 was the first and only foray into missile-only escorts. Not only does it incorporate the propulsion improvements of the Brave and the enlarged flight deck and improved electronics of the last three Batch 2, but it has the latest armament and sensors. The amidships of the Type 22 Batch 3 was thus considerably modified to accommodate the new 'punch.' The sensible addition of the Mark 8 114 mm gun forward gave a new dimension to the class, and a back-up to the missile armaments. This made the anti-ship missile launchers redundant, and these were moved to amidships in the form of the much superior, more compact and flexible Harpoon. This does not need to be mounted facing forward, like the Exocet, but one launcher fires off either beam. These launchers are sited between the forward and midships superstructures. Above and behind the Harpoon launchers is a very important addition; a GE / Signaal Goalkeeper 30mm 7-barreled CIWS. Fitted with an extremely powerful General Electric 'Gatling' cannon, this weapon is far more effective than the earlier Vulcan-Phalanx, and the latter has been displaced by the former in the most important units in the fleet.As mentioned before, a new COGOG propulsion package was adopted for more efficient running, and a lighter equipment weight. All round the design, improvements from previous experience and new technology have been incorporated, and without any doubt, the Type 22 Batch 3 frigates are the Royal Navy's most powerful and premier escorts; they are big, fast, well armed in all respects and have powerful active and passive sensors. The Type 22 Batch 2 are currently in the process of paying off, with Boxer, Beaver, Brave and London paid off and laid up awaiting disposals ( probably scrapping, except London which may join HMS Belfast as a museum ship in the Pool of London ). Coventry will pay off in 2001 and Sheffield soon afterwards. With them, the Exocet missile, once in widespread use onboard RN escorts, will too leave the service. Dimensions & Displacements Batch 2 Batch 3 Empty displacement 3 500 tonnes 4 200 tonnes, Full displacement 4 800 tonnes 4 900 tonnes, Length 143.6 m ( Brave, Boxer, Beaver ), 148.1 m ( others ) 148.1 m, Beam 14.8 m 14.8 m, Draft 6.0 m 6.4 m Performance & Propulsion Range 4 500 NM @ 18 knots cruise Speed 30 knots max ( 28 knots in Brave ), 18 knots cruise Propulsion Batch 2 COGOG, 2 x RR Olympus TM3B @ 50 000 shp or 2 x RR Tyne RM1C @ 9 900 shp, Brave COGAG, 2 x RR Spey SM1C @ 37 450 shp & 2 x RR Tyne RM1C @ 9 900 shp, Batch 3 COGAG, 2 x RR Spey SM1A @ 29 500 shp & 2 x RR Tyne RM3C @ 10 680 shp Armament, Electronics & Complement Complement Batch 2 30 officers & 243 ratings Batch 3 31 officers & 219 ratings Armament Electronics Batch 2 Gun: 2 x 2 x 30 mm Oerlikon/BMARC GCM-A02 AA Missile: 2 x 6 x Sea Wolf GWS 25 mod-0 surface-air missiles or; 2 x 6 x Sea Wolf GWS 25 mod-iv surface-air missiles, 4 x 1 x Exocet MM.38 anti-ship missiles Anti-submarine: 2 x 3 STWS Mark 2 torpedo tubes Stingray torpedoes Aircraft: 1 or 2 x Lynx HAS.3/8 ( Brave, Boxer & Beaver ) or; 1 x Sea King HAS.6 ( others ) Countermeasures 2 x Plessey Shield launchers, 4 x GEC Marconi Sea Gnat launchers, DEC laser dazzle sights, 1 x Graesby Type 128 towed decoy Search: 1 x Type 967/968 search radar or; 1 x Type 967M search radar ( Brave ), 1 x Type 2016 active sonar 1 x Type 2031Z passive towed array sonar Fire Control: 2 x Type 910 fire control radars ( Boxer & Beaver ) or; 2 x Type 911 fire control radars ( others ) Navigation: 1 x Type 1006 navigation radar or; 1 x Type 1007 navigation radar ( as available ) Communication: Marisat SATCOM satellite system Countermeasures: Type 670 ECM, Type UAA-2 ECM Batch 3 Gun: 1 x 1 x 114 mm Mark 8 DP, 2 x 1 x 30 mm DES DS-30B AA, 1 x 7 x 30 mm GE/Signaalapparaten Goalkeeper CIWS Missile: 2 x 6 x Sea Wolf GWS 25 mod-iii surface-air missiles 2 x 4 x Harpoon IC RGM-84 anti-ship missiles Anti-submarine: 2 x 3 STWS Mark 2 torpedo tubes Stingray torpedoes Aircraft: 1 or 2 x Lynx HAS.3/8 or; 1 x Sea King HAS.6 Countermeasures: 4 x GEC Marconi Sea Gnat launchers
DEC laser dazzle sights,1 x Graesby Type 128 towed decoy
Search:1 x Type 967/968 search radar, 1 x Type 2016 active sonar or; 1 x Type 2050 active sonar ( as available ), 1 x Type 2031Z passive towed array sonar Sea Archer Mark 20 passive IR surveillance Fire Control: 2 x Type 911 fire control radars Navigation: 1 x Type 1006 navigation radar or; 1 x Type 1007 navigation radar ( as available ) Communication: SCOT 1D SATCOM satellite system Countermeasures: Type 675 ECM, UAF-1 Cutlass ECM Type 23 Duke class Frigate Norfolk F230 Argyll F231 Lancaster F229 ex F232 * (232 means grounded ship) Marlborough F233 Iron Duke F234 Monmouth F235 Montrose F236 Westminster F237 Northumberland F238 Richmond F239 Somerset F82 Grafton F80 Sutherland F81 Kent F78 Portland F79 St. Albans F83 Changed to 229 because 232 is an unlucky number : 232 is Royal Navy code for a grounded ship... Type 23 Duke class frigate HMS Norfolk. Norfolk was the lead ship for this extremely successful class, and pioneered the new systems of the class; VL Sea wolf, the Merlin helicopter, the Type 996 3-D search radar, fixed Cray-Marine torpedo tubes and the Type 2031Z towed-array passive and Type 2050 hull-mounted active sonars. Notice the rakish lines, and the 7.5E° angle to all vertical surfaces. This reflects radar energy either upwards and away or down into the sea, where feedback from the clutter of the surfaces makes it unintelligible. On all but the most sophisticated and powerful radar sets, the Type 23 appears to be a small fishing-boat sized vessel. The horn like structures at the masthead are reflectors for the ECM / SIGINT outfit In the early 1980's, before the Falklands, the Royal Navy's frigate force was a motley collection of old units armed with 4.5" guns, Sea Cat missiles and A/S mortars, upgraded "Leander" class ships with Exocet or Ikara missiles added, the more modern but quite simple Type 21 "Amazon" class and the ( then ) ultra-modern Type 22 batch 1 "Broadsword." The Broadsword was the only type armed with a modern missile - the Sea Wolf - and also carried the Exocet, a Lynx helicopter, torpedo tubes and two 40mm AA guns. Post Falklands evaluations showed the need for a rapid-reaction missile, and the existing Sea Wolf was perfect. It was envisaged that a further 22 Type 22 frigates would be built, to allow for 26, and that the Type 42, Type 21 and "Invincible" class would be refitted with Sea Wolf. However, as the post Falklands outcry died down, none of these projects survived, although a respectable 15 Type 22 frigates were completed, the last 11 to much improved designs. Type 23 was originally envisaged as a cut-price unit of 23 ships, to replace the ageing "Leander" and "Rothesay" classes and to make up the numbers of canceled Type 22 units, they were intended for North Sea deployment as escorts to Type 22 units, or in small groups to hunt Soviet submarines 'leaking' out of the Baltic. As envisaged, they were to have been armed with a vertical launch ( VL ) Sea Wolf system for self defense, the Mark 8 gun for dual-purpose roles, Stingray torpedoes and the ( then ) WG34 helicopter for A/S work and either Exocet or Harpoon missiles for anti-ship work. Although these weapon systems survived in the final design, they were linked to hugely advanced and expensive sensors and computer and control systems, and the hull and propulsion package were designed for true 21st century operation. The emerging design was an extremely expensive ( c. ££160 million per unit ), advanced but useful design. Following the Falklands war, close defense was a priority, and with the VL Sea Wolf linked to the Type 996 3-D radar, two 30mm DES guns and four sets of Sea Gnat countermeasures launchers, the Type 23 frigate is a hard target to tackle. Not only is it well armed and defended, but it has a very small radar signature, thanks to a 7.5 degree angle and subtle curves to vertical surfaces. This gives a Type 23 frigate the signature of a fishing-boat sized vessel. Not only is it hard to detect by radar, but special caps on the funnels incorporate advanced cooling mechanisms to greatly reduce the heat ( IR ) emissions from the engines. The propulsion system itself is also hugely advanced. For the first time, a CODLAG installation ( COmbined Diesel eLectric And Gas turbine ) is used. The diesels are used for a new type of tactic, a low speed 'stalk' or a nuclear submarine, as opposed to the traditional use of the lower-powered engines as cruising engines. The 'stalk' technique requires the Type 23 to move slowly and almost silently, using it's towed array sonar to full effect. Although nuclear submarines can travel at around 35 knots, when they do so they are hugely noisy, and they too spend most of their time in ultra-quiet stalking modes. The diesel engines function as generators, powering silent running electric motors. These diesels are mounted above the surface on shock-proof mounts for quiet running, and the two innermost engines are double-hooded and acoustically silenced for near-silent running. These pair are used when the ship is required to move extremely slowly and silently. the use of Diesel-electric transmission means that there are no noisy, heavy, expensive and complex reduction or reversing gears, and that the electric motors can be mounted on very short shafts for minimal noise generation. The screws themselves are extremely well designed for efficient operation, and have special holes cut in them to allow for very little 'churning' of the water. The Rolls Royce Marine Spey gas turbines are only used in the final moments of submarine attack, when both units know that the other is present, active sonars are switched on and a 'kill' is imminent. They allow for extremely rapid acceleration to 28 knots, but the silent 'stealth' is instantly broken and they are only used when really needed. As for weaponry, compared to similar sized foreign vessels, the Type 23 are very heavily armed. the armament is located at the extremes of the vessel, with the Mark 8 gun, Harpoon missiles and VL Sea Wolf 32 cell launcher immediately in front of the bridge, and the Cray-Marine torpedo tubes for Stingray torpedoes built into the Hangar ( for the Merlin or Lynx aft. ) The helicopter is an extremely important part of the armory, and a very large flight deck and hangar is an important part of the design. The VL Sea Wolf and Cray-Marine torpedo tubes have the advantage over traditional training launchers that firstly reaction times are reduced, there is no need to train before firing and secondly, reloading can rapidly be effected from the safety of the magazine. Two DES 30mm guns provide close in cover, although sometime in the future, a CIWS such as Shorts Sea Streak missiles may be fitted in lieu. Sensors for the Type 23 are a mix of very advanced active and passive systems; Active systems are the Type 996 3-D multi-mode search radar, the Type 911 fire control radars and the Type 2050 bow-mounted active sonar. The passive systems are the wide-spectrum TV cameras bore sighted with the Type 911 radars, the Sea Archer Mark 20 passive tracking / search system ( which can be used to control the Mark 8 gun ) and the Type 2031Z towed array passive sonar. This allows for almost full operation of all weapons with no active sensors switched on. Originally envisaged as a class of 23 ships, the last seven were never ordered. And although the class were ordered and built in groups, all batches of the class were built to the same or very similar specifications, with some ECM upgrades in later units. Except for HMS Iron Duke, all of this class are named after Dukedoms, and although these names have come under some criticism for being 'soft' and uninspiring, they are actually far from soft in terms of historical events and figures of importance. Originally all ships of the class were to have been based at Devonport, but this did not happen and HMS' Grafton, Iron Duke, Lancaster, Marlborough, Richmond, Westminster form the 4th Frigate squadron based in Portsmouth, Argyll, Monmouth, Montrose, Norfolk, Northumberland, Somerset, and Sutherland forming the 6th Frigate squadron, Devonport. Westminster starred in the James bong film ' Tomorrow Never Dies,' when she played HMS' Bedford, Chester and Devonshire, fictionally armed with RGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Dimensions: Empty Displacement 3500 tonnes, Full Displacement 4200 tonnes, Length 133 m, Beam 16.1 m Draft 7.3 m Performance & Propulsion Range 9 000 NM @ 15 knots, Propulsion CODLAG; 2 x Rolls Royce Marine Spey SM1A gas turbines @ 37 540 shp 4 x Paxman Valenta RPA 200 CZ 12cyl. 'vee' diesel generators @ 8 100 bhp / 5 220 kW, 2 x GEC Electric motors @ 4 000 shp, Speed 28 kts on gas-turbines 10 kts on diesel-electric 'stalk' Armament, Electronics & Complement Complement 17 officers, 57 petty officers & 111 ratings Armament Gun: 1 x 1 x 114 mm L/55 Vickers Mark 8 main gun, 2 x 1 x 30 mm L/75 Oerlikon / BMARC DES DS-30B AA Missile: 1 x 32 tube BAe Sea Wolf GWS 26 mod i. VLS surface-air missile
2 x 4 x MD / Boeing Harpoon RGM-84 anti-ship missilesTorpedo: 4 x Cray Marine fixed 324mm tubes for GEC-Marconi Stingray anti-submarine torpedoes Aircraft: 1 or 2 x Westland Lynx HAS.3 or; 1 x EHI Merlin HAS.1 ( as available ) Countermeasures: DEC laser dazzle sights
4 x 6 x GEC-Marconi 130mm 6-barreled Sea Gnat CM launchers
1 x Graesby Mk.128 towed decoy ElectronicsSearch: 1 x Siemens / Plessey Type 966 3-D search radar 1 x Ferranti / Thomson / Sintra Type 2050 active sonar 1 x Dowty Type 2031Z passive towed array sonar
Sea Archer Mark 20 passive IR surveillanceFire Control: 2 x Marconi Type 911 GWS 26 fire control radars Navigation: 1 x Kelvin Hughes Type 1007 navigation radars Communication: SCOT 1D SATCOM satellite system Countermeasures: Type 675 UAA-2 jammer ECM
Scorpion ECM ( on some units )
UAF-Cutlass or UAT passive SIGINTItalian Navy
AN/SLQ 25 Nixie towed torpedo decoy
SLQ-732 integrated receiver/jammer system
SwRI Sea Eagle D/F with AS-505 antenna
2 Breda SCLAR 105mm decoy launchers
US Prairie Masker noise masking system
Sonars Raytheon DE 1160 LF, bow mounted.Crew compliment: Usual 825, 550 crew, 230 air group, 45 flag staff, Troops 500 troops w/2 personnel transport launches. C.550 Vittorio Veneto Castellammare now operates as a Command ship Dimensions: Length(O/A) 589' (179.5m), Flight Deck Length 131.0' (40m), Flight Deck Width 61.0'(18.6m), Beam 63.6' (19.4m), Draft 19.7' (6m), Full Load 9,500 tons, Standard 7,700 tons. Propulsion: Boilers 4, Ansaldo Turbines 2 geared steam, Horsepower 73,000 shp, Shafts 2, Endurance 5,000 NM @ 17 kts, Max Speed 32 kts. Armor: Side Belt 4" Armament:
Main Battery 8 x OTO Melara 3" (76mm)/62 cal. MMK in 2 quad turrets 1 forward 1 aft (researchers note- one bad motha'- would not want to get in front of it- very accurate w/15.5' barrel length)
AAW 6 x OTO Breda 40mm/70 cal. in 3 twin mounts (installed 1983-84)
4 x 13mm, SAM 1 x Terrier w/60 missiles replaced in 1983-84 by 1 x Aster twin Mk 10 Mod 9 launcher (3 rotary drums) w/ 40 GDC Pomona Standard SM-1ER missiles
SSM 4 x OTOMAT
ASW 1 x Honeywell ASROC launcher w/20 missilesTorpedoes 6 x 12.75" Countermeasures: Air 2 SCLAR decoy, Torpedo SLQ-25 Nixie towed
ESM/ECM: UAA-1 intercept SLQ-2 B/C jammersRadars:
Air Search Hughes SPS 52C ,3D Selenia SPS 768 (RAN 3L) early warning,Surface Search SMA SPS 702, Navigation SMA SPS 748, Fire Control 4 Selenia SPG 70 (RTN 10X) Argo, 2 Selenia SPG 74 (RTN 20X) Dardo, 2 Sperry/RCA SPG 55C (Standard), Sonars Sangamo SQS 23G bow-mounted. Aircraft: Helicopters 6-9 AB 212 ASW or 4-6 Sea Kings above decks Complement: Usual 550-650 D.560 Luigi Durand de la Penne D.561 Fransesco Mimbelli Dimensions Length(O/A):484.5' (147.7m), Beam: 52.8' (16.1m), Draft: 16.5' (5.1m). Displacement Full Load: 5,400 tons, Standard: 4,500 tons Propulsion Turbines: CODOG 2 x GE/Fiat LM 2500 gas turbines Diesels:2 x Motori GMT BL 230-20 DVM Horsepower: 55,000 shp (2 x 27,500) (gas turbines), 12,600 bhp (2 x 6,300 bhp) (diesels) Shafts: 2 Endurance: 7,000 NM @ 18 kts, Max Speed: 31.5 kts, 21 kts (diesels). Armament Main Gun: 1 x OTO Melara 5"(127mm)/54 cal., Secondary Gun: 3 x OTO Melara 3"(76mm)/62 cal. Super Rapid
Light A/A: 4 HMG
SAM: 1 x Mk 13 Mod 4 launcher w/40 GDC Pomona Standard SM-1MR missiles
1 x Selenia Albatross Mk 2 octuple launcher for Aspide SAM
SSM: 8 OTO Melara/Matra Teseo Mk 2 in four twin mountsTorpedoes: 6 x B-515 12.75" (324mm) in two triple mounts w/Mk 46/A-244/MU-90 torpedoes. Radars:
Air Search: Hughes SPS 52C,3D long-range air search ,E-band Selenia SPS 768 (RAN 3L) long range air early warning ,D-band
Surface Search: SPS-702 surface search/frequency-agile sea-skimmer detectorNavigation: SMA SPN 703 (3 RM 20), SMA SPN-748 Fire Control: SPS-774 (RAN-10S) air/surface search ,E/F-band for Albatros Mk 2 4 Selenia SPG 775 (RTN-30X) Argo gun/missile control, 2 Raytheon SPG 51D for SM-1MR Combat System: IPN-20 (SADOC-2) combat data/weapons control system SYS-1(V)2 sensor data fusion system SATCOM satellite communications system with Link 11 and Link 14 –– Researchers note: Americans use Link 16 on major combatants. Some reserve units will have Link 11
Sonars: Raytheon DE-1167 LF hull-mounted DE-1167 LF integrated VDSCountermeasures Air: 2 CSEE Sagaie launchers Torpedo: SLQ-25 Nixie towed torpedo decoy system, US Prairie/Masker (Elmer)
ESM/ECM: SLQ-732 Nettuno integrated intercept SLC-705 jammers COMINT interceptAircraft Helicopters: 2x AB-212 ASW helicopters (EH-101 and SH-3D helicopter capable) w/hangar Complement Usual: 377 (32 officers and 345 enlisted, with accommodation for a total of 400) Audace Class Multipurpose Guided Missile Destroyers D.550 Ardito, 1st Naval Division, to DECOM ./2005 D.551 Audace, 1st Naval Division, to DECOM ./2006 Dimensions Length(O/A):461.6' (140.7m), Beam: 48' (14.65m), Draft: 15' (4.6m) Displacement Full Load: 4,554 tons, Standard: 3,950 tons Propulsion Boilers: 4 x Foster-Wheeler (43 kg/cm2; 450-deg C) Turbines: 2 geared steam, Horsepower: 73,000 shp Shafts: 2, Endurance: 4,000 NM @ 25 kts, Max Speed: 34 kts. Armament Main Gun: 2 x OTO Breda 5"(127mm) /54 cal. in two single mounts forward, aft 1 removed in late 1980s replaced by Aspide launcher, Secondary Gun:
3 x OTO Melara 3"(76mm)/62 cal. Compact plus
1 x 3"(76mm)/62 cal. Super Rapid (Ardito)
4 x 3"(76mm)/62 cal. Super Rapid (Audace)
Light A/A 4 HMG
1 x Mk 13 Mod 4 launcher w/40 GDC Pomona Standard SM-1MR missiles
1 x Selenia Albatross Mk 2 octuple launcher for Aspide SAM
SSM: 8 OTO Melara/Matra Teseo Mk 2 in four twin mountsTorpedoes 4 x 21" tubes for A-184 torpedoes, 6 ILAS-3 tubes for Mk 46 torpedoes replaced by 6 x Mk 32 12.75" (324mm) in 2 triple tubes w/Honeywell Mk 46/Whitehead A-244 torpedoes Radars Air Search: Hughes SPS 52C,3D long-range air search ,E-band, Selenia SPS-768(V)3 (RAN-3L) long range air early warning ,D-band
Surface Search RAN-20S replaced by Selenia SPS 768 (RAN 3L)
Navigation SMA SPN-748 SPQ-2D surface search/navigation
Combat System IPN-20 (SADOC-2) combat data/weapons control system Link 11 and 14 SATCOMFire Control SPS-774 (RAN-10S) air/surface search ,E/F-band for Albatros system (Aspide SAM), 3 Selenia SPG-75 (RTN-30X) fire control for missile/gun, 2 Raytheon SPG 51C fire control for SM-1MR, 3x Dardo-E (NA-30) radar/electro-optical fire control system, IR-cameras and laser rangefinders Sonars CWE-610A MF hull-mounted Countermeasures Air 2 Breda 105mm SCLAR launchers w/20 countermeasures Torpedo SLQ-25 Nixie towed decoy
3x SLQ-B jammers
2x SLQ-C jammersAircraft Helicopters 2 AB 212 ASW w/ hangar Complement Usual:380 (30 officers, 350 enlisted) This is a pretty nice ship, quite fast for a steam turbine with okay endurance. Only draw back I see in this class is the SM1 missile system - your radars have to be illuminating the target all the time when engaging a target, whereas the American SM2 is fire and forget. Impavido Class Destroyers D 570 Impavido D 571 Intrepido Dimensions Length(O/A) 431', Beam 45.8', Draft 14.1' Displacement Full Load 3,990 tons, Standard 3,200 tons Propulsion Boilers 4, Turbines 2 Tosi geared steam Range: unknown, Horsepower:70,000, Shafts 2, Max Speed 33.5 kts Armament Main Gun 1 x 5"/38 cal. Mk 13 in one twin turret forward, Secondary Gun:
4 x OTO Melara 3"/62 cal. Compact
Light A/A 4 HMG
SAM 1 x Mk 13 Mod 4 launcher w/ 40 Tarta replaced by w/40 GDC Pomona Standard SM-1MR missiles
Torpedoes 6 ILAS-3 tubes for Mk 44/46 torpedoes
Air Search: Hughes SPS 52B,Surface Search: SPS-12 Navigation: unknown, Fire Control: 3 Selenia SPG 70 (RTN 10X) Argo gun/missile control: 2 Raytheon SPG 51B for SM-1MR Sonars: SQS 23
Torpedo: SLQ-25 Nixie towed decoy
SLQ-732, intercept SLQ-2 B/C jammersAircraft Helicopters: 1 AB 212 ASW no hangar or refueling capability Complement: Usual 334 This is a very old ship, even by Italian standards. Most likely used as a reserve trainer, if it isn't stricken. This ship is probably on its way to the scrap yard. Soldati (Artigliere) Class Patrol Frigates 'Modified Lupo type' F.582 Artigliere Fincantieri Ancona shipyard Mar./82 F.583 Aviere Fincantieri Ancona shipyard Sep./82 F.584 Bersagliere Fincantieri Ancona shipyard Apr./83 F.585 Granatiere C.N.R. Riva Trigoso shipyard Mar./84 Dimensions Length(O/A) 371.4' (113.2m), Beam 37.1' (11.93m), Draft 12.6' (3.84m) Displacement Full Load 2,525 tons, Standard 2,208 tons Propulsion Power plant 2 GE/Fiat LM-2500 gas turbines, 2 GMT A230-20M diesels, Horsepower 2 x 25,000 shp (turbines) 7,900 bhp (diesel), Electric 4 x 780 kW GMT diesels, Shafts 2 w/ CP props, Endurance 5,300 NM @ 16 kts 3,450 NM @ 20 kts, 900 NM @ 35 kts, Max Speed 35 kts (turbines), 20.5 kts (diesels) Armament Main:
1 x 5" (127mm)/54 cal. OTOBreda in one single mount forward
AAW 4 x 40mm/70 cal OTOBreda Dardo compact in two twin mounts
4 x HMG
20mm Oerlikon can be fitted
SAM: 1 x Albatros octuple launcher w/ Aspide missiles
SSM: 8 OTOMAT Teseo Mk 2 (TG2)in four twin mountsTorpedoes 6 x 12.75" (324mm) Mk 32 w/Honeywell Mk 46 torpedoes Countermeasures:
Air: 2 Breda 105mm SCLAR launchers (2x20)
Torpedo: SLQ-25 Nixie towed decoy
ESM/ECM: SLQ-747 (INS-3M) integrated suite
Air/Surface Search: 1 Selenia SPS-774 (RAN 10S) E/F band
Surface Search/Target Indication: SMA SPS-712 (RAN-12L/X) for CIWS
Navigation: SMA SPN-703,Combat Data Systems IPN-10 (mini-SADOC)Link 11 SATCOM Fire Control 2 Selenia SPG-70 (RTN 10X) Albatros/main gun 2 Selenia SPG-74 (RTN 20X) Argo 40mm control Sonars Raytheon DE 1160B, hull mounted removed when taken over Aircraft Helicopters 1 AB-212 ASW w/ hangar Complement: Usual 187 total, 17 officers, 170 enlisted These ships are comparable to the Oliver Hazard Perry class Fast Frigate the navy operates, but is poorly set up in NTDS (Combat communications w/Link 11), and not enough redundant jammers or radars for Electronic Warfare survivability. Maestrale Class Frigates 'Improved Lupo type' F.570 Maestrale C.N.R. F.571 Grecale C.N.R. F.572 Libeccio C.N.R. F.573 Scirocco C.N.R. F.574 Aliseo C.N.R. F.575 Euro C.N.R. F.576 Espero C.N.R. F.577 Zeffiro C.N.R. Dimensions Length(O/A) 402.7' (122.73m), Beam 42.25'(12.88m), Draft 13.8' (4.2m) 19.5' (5.95m) maximum Displacement Full Load 3,200 tons, Standard 2,800 tons Propulsion Power plant CODOG 2 GE/Fiat LM-2500 gas turbines, 2 GMT BL230-20DVM diesels, Horsepower 2 x 25,000 shp (gas turbines), 2 x 5,073 bhp (diesels), Electric 4 x 780Kw diesels, Shafts 2w/ CP props, Endurance 6,000 NM @ 15 Kts, 3,800 NM @ 20 Kts, 1,500 NM @ 30 Kts, Max Speed 33 Kts (gas), 21 Kts (diesels) Armament Main:
1 x 5" (127mm)/54 cal OTO Breda in one single mount forward
AAW 4 x 40mm/70 cal OTOBreda Dardo compact in two twin mounts
2 x 20mm Oerlikon can be fitted
SAM: 1 x Selenia Albatross octuple launcher w/24 Aspide missiles
SSM: 4 OTOMAT Teseo Mk 2 (TG2)
Torpedoes 6 x Mk 32 12.75" (324mm) ILAS-3 tubes w/Honeywell Mk 46/A-244/MU-90 torpedoes, 2 x 21" (533mm) B516 tubes in transom, w/Whitehead A184 Mod 3 torpedoesCountermeasures: Air: 2 Breda 105mm SCLAR launchers (2x20)
Torpedo: SLQ-25 Nixie towed decoy, US Prairie Masker air-blowing noise suppression system ESM/ECM: SLR-4 Newton intercept with CO-NEWS communications intercept, 2x SLQ-D jammers Radars:
Air/Surface Search: 1 Selenia SPS-774 (RAN 10S) E/F band
Surface Search: 1 SMA SPS-702
Navigation: 1 SMA SPN-703Combat Data Systems IPN-20 (SADOC-2), Link 11, Link 14, SATCOM Fire Control:1 Selenia SPG-75 (RTN 30X) for Albatros/main gun, 2 Selenia SPG-74 (RTN 20X) Argo 40mm gun control Sonars: Raytheon DE-1164 MF, hull mounted, DE-1164 VDS Aircraft Helicopters 2 AB-212 ASW w/hangar Complement Usual 232 total, 24 officers, 208 enlisted Not a bad ship, again, not enough redundancies for EW or actual combat, but as an escort with envelope protection from other ships, quite suited to the task. Lupo Class Multirole Frigates F.564 Lupo C.N.R. F.565 Sagittario C.N.R. F.566 Perseo C.N.R. F.567 Orsa C.N.R. Dimensions Length(O/A) 372.5' (113.55m), Beam 39.4' (12m), Draft 13.12' (4m), 18.7' (5.7m) maximum Displacement Full Load 2,525 tons, Standard 2,208 tons Propulsion Power plant CODOG 2 GE/Fiat LM-2500 gas turbines, 2 GMT A230-20M diesels, Horsepower 2 x 25,000 shp (turbine) 7,900 (diesels), Electric 4 x Fiat 236SS diesel alternator sets (3,120 Kw), Shafts 2 w/ CP props, Endurance 4,350 NM @ 16 Kts, 3,450 NM @ 20 Kts, 900 NM @ 35 Kts, Max Speed 35 Kts (trialson turbines), 20.3 Kts (diesels) Armament Main:
1 x 5" (127mm)/54 cal OTO Breda in one single mount forward
AAW: 4 x OTOBreda Dardo 40mm/70 cal compact in two twin mounts
4 HMG, 20mm Oerlikon can be fitted
SAM: 1 x Raytheon MK 29 octuple launcher, w/NATO Sea Sparrow missiles
SSM: 8 OTOMAT Teseo Mk 2 (TG2)in four twin mounts
Torpedoes: 6 x Mk 32 12.75" (324mm) tubes w/Honeywell Mk 46 torpedoesCountermeasures Air: 2 Breda 105mm SCLAR launchers Torpedo: SLQ-25 Nixie towed acoustic torpedo decoy
ESM/ECM: SLR-4 Newton intercept suite, 2x SLQ-D jammers 2x SCLAR decoy launchers (2x20)
Air/Surface Search: 1 Selenia SPS-774 (RAN 10S) E/F Band SMA SPQ-2F
Surface Search/Sea skimmer detection/Ducting** radar: SMA CORA SPS-702Navigation: SMA SPN-748 Combat Data Systems: IPN-20 (SADOC-2)combat data/weapons control system Link 11 SATCOM Fire Control: Selenia SPG 70 (RTN-10X)Sea Sparrow/127mm, 2 x Selenia SPG 74 (RTN-20X) Argo 40mm control, 1 x US Mk 91 Mod 1 (Sea Sparrow) Sonars: Raytheon DE-1160B MF, hull mounted Aircraft Helicopters 1 AB-212 ASW w/ hangar Complement Usual 184 total, 15 officers, 169 enlisted ** Ducting uses weather and frequency shift to vary the pattern and range of the radar. This allows you as the emmitter to look closer or further away from your intended target based on weather or atmospheric conditions, and power output. Minerva Class Multipurpose Corvettes F.551 Minerva F.552 Urania F.553 Danaide F.554 Sfinge F.555 Driade F.556 Chimera F.557 Fenice F.558 Sibilla Dimensions Length(O/A) 284.1' (86.6m), Beam 34.5' (10.5m), Draft 10.4' (3.16m), 15.7' (4.8m) maximum Displacement Full Load 1,285 tons, Standard 1,029 tons Propulsion Diesels 2 GMT BM 230-20 DVM diesels, Horsepower 11,000 bhp, Electric 4x Isotta-Fraschini ID36.55 S12V diesel sets 2,080 KW, Shafts 2 w/ CP props, Endurance 3,500 NM @ 18 Kts, Max Speed 24 Kts Armament Main Gun: 1 x 76mm/62 cal OTOBreda compact in one single mount forward
Light A/A 4 HMG
SAM: 1 x Selenia Elsag Albatros octuple launcher w/ 8 Aspide missiles
SSM: fitted for 4-6 OTO Melara/Matra Teseo Mk 2 (TG2) but not installed as of March '00 meaning no anti ship capabilityTorpedoes: 6 x 12.75" (324mm) Whitehead B515 (two triple tubes) w/Honeywell Mk 46/A-244/MU-90 torpedoes
Air/Surface: Search Selenia SPS-774 (RAN 10S) E/F BandNavigation: SMA SPS-728 (V)2
Fire Control: Selenia SPG-75 (RTN 30X) (for Albatros & OTOBreda 76mm)Combat Data Systems: IPN-10 Mini SADOC Link 11
Sonars: Raytheon/Elsag DE-1167, hull mounted VDS can be fittedCountermeasures Air: 2 Type 207/E Wallop Barricade double layer decoy rocket launchers Torpedo: SLQ-25 Nixie towed torpedo decoy
ESM/ECM: SLQ-747 intercept/jammer suite (INS-3)with SLQ-732, intercept and SLQ-2 B/C jammersComplement Usual 113 total: 7 officers, 106 enlisted German Navy
tonnage: 4,720 tpower: 51,500 kw (70,000 HP) speed: more than 30 knots crew: 327 ESM/ECM: Fl 1800 SII Weapons 2 x 20 mm 2 x guns 127 mm **** this is most likely an American gun Harpoon-missile (SSM) SM-1 (SAM) RAM (SAM)**** note that weapon 6 x anti-sub torpedo tubes anti-sub missiles ASROC Frigates (4) "Brandenburg-class" all ships ready until end of 1996
tonnage: 4,500 tpower: 38,000 kw (51,600 HP) speed: 29 knots crew: 237 (18 for the helicopters) weapons 1 x gun 76 mm 4 x Exocet MM 38 missiles (SSM) 16 Sea Sparrow (SAM) (VLS) 2 x 21 RAM (SAM) Frigates (8) "Bremen-class":
tonnage: 3,800 tpower: 38,000 kw (51,600 HP) speed: more than 30 knots crew: 204 (18 for the helicopters) radars: DA-08 (EW), WM-25 (TT/NAV), SRM20A (NAV) ESM/ECM: Fl 1800 SI soon to be replaced by the much better Fl 1800 SII weapons 1 x gun 76 mm 8 x Harpoon missiles (SSM) 8 x Sea Sparrow (+ 8 for reloading) 2 x 21 RAM (SAM) 4 x anti-sub torpedo tubes 2 Sea Lynx helicopters 4 x anti-sub torpedo tubes 2 Sea Lynx helicopters Fast Patrolboat (16)"Tiger-class": oldest Patroalboats, build in the 70's in France 8 ships + 1 supply ship Elbe class (3rd Squadron) in Flensburg 8 ships + 1 supply ship Elbe class (5th Squadron) in Olpenitz tonnage: 265 t lenght: 50 m power: 8,800 kw (12,000 HP) speed: more than 35 knots crew: 30 weapons Fast Patrolboat (10)"Gepard-class":newest Patroalboats (build in the 80's), wooden hull (anti magnetic :)
tonnage: 390 tlenght: 57.5 m power: 11,700 kw (16,000 HP) speed: 40 knots crew: 35 weapons 1 x gun 76 mm 4 x Exocet MM 38 missiles (SSM) 21 RAM (SAM) Minelaying capability 1 x gun 76 mm 1 x gun 40 mm 4 x Exocet MM 38 missiles (SSM) Minelaying capability Dutch Navy
1 x 3"/62 cal OTO Melara Mk 100
2 x 20mm Oerlikon
SSM: 8 x Boeing Harpoon Block 1C in 2 quad mounts
SAM: 16 x Raytheon/Hughes Seasparrow (RIM-7M), in Mk48 VLS
CIWS 1 x Signaal SGE-30 Goal Keeper with GE 30mm
Torpedoes 4 x 324mm Plessey US Mk 32 Mod 9 in 2 twin tubes mounted inside superstructure) w/ Alliant Techsystems Mk 46 Mod 5 lightweight anti-submarine torpedoesDecoys 2 Lockheed Martin Hycor SBROC Mk 36 quad chaff launchers; Aerojet Nixie AN/SLQ-25 towed torpedo decoy
ECM/ESM ARGOSystems APECS II radar detection and jamming systemAir/Surface Search Signaal SMART-S, 3-D Signaal LW08, 2-D Surface Search Signaal ZW06 Navigation Racal 1226 Combat Data Systems Signaal SEWACO VIIB Fire Control 2 Signaal STIR tracking and illuminating radars (Seasparrow/ 3"), Signaal IRSCAN infrared search and track system (testing in F 829), may be fitted to the rest (for Goalkeeper), SATCOM WSC-6 twin aerials, Link 11, Sonars Thomson Sintra Anaconda DSBV 61 (passive towed array); Signaal PHS-36 (active search and attack) This class is very close to an Oliver Hazard Perry Class Fast Frigate. Under armed in the gun department. It is faster, and more maneuverable, bur less hardware. An OHP has the same missile system basically, but also has a 76mm gun. F 812 Jacob Van Heemskerck F 813 Witte De With Length(O/A) 428' (130.5m) Beam 47.9' (14.6m) Draft 20.3' (6.2m) Turbines 2 Rolls Royce Olympus TM3B gas (main) 2 Rolls Royce Tyne RM1C gas (aux) Range 4,700 NM @ 16 kts Horsepower 51,600 shp (main) 9,800 shp (aux) Shafts 2 Max Speed 30 Kts (main) 20 Kts (aux) Anti-Air 2 x 20mm Oerlikon SSM 8 x Boeing Harpoon Block 1C in 2 quad mounts SAM 1Mk 13 Mod 4 launcher w/40 x GDC Pomona Standard SM-1MR
1x 8 cell Mk29 octuple launcher w/8 x Raytheon/HughesSeasparrow (RIM-7M) + 16 reloads CIWS 1 x Signaal SGE-30 Goal Keeper with GE 30mm
Torpedoes 4 x 324mm Plessey US Mk 32 Mod 9 in 2 twin tubes w/ Honeywell Mk 46 torpedoesDecoys:
2 Lockheed Martin Hycor SBROC Mk 36 quad chaff launchers;Aerojet Nixie AN/SLQ-25 towed torpedo decoy
ECM/ESM Sphinx;intercept Ramses;jammerAir/Surface Search Signaal SMART, 3-D Signaal LW08 Signaal DA05 Navigation Racal 1226 Combat Data Systems Signaal SEWACO-II Fire Control 2 Signaal STIR 240 (SM-1MR) 1 Signaal STIR 180 (Seasparrow) SATCOM WSC-6 twin aerials, Link 11 Sonars Westinghouse SQS 509,hull mounted These are smaller frigates, most have been sold off to other countries. These are all that remain. These systems are very similar to the Oliver Hazard Perry class Fast Frigate, has more prevelent small bore guns on deck. F 823 Philips Van Almonde F 824 Bloys Van Treslong F 825 Jan Van Brakel F 826 Pieter Florisz ex Willem van der Zaan Length(O/A) 428' (130.5m) Beam 47.9' (14.6m) Draft 20.3' (6.2m) Turbines 2 Rolls Royce Olympus TM3B gas (main) 2 Rolls Royce Tyne RM1C gas (aux) Range 4,700 NM @ 16 kts Horsepower 51,600 shp (main) 9,800 shp (aux) Shafts 2 Max Speed 30 knts (main) 20 knts (aux) Main Guns: 1 x OTO Melara 3"/62 cal DP compact
Anti-Air: 2 x 20mm Oerlikon
SSM 8 x Boeing Harpoon Block 1C in 2 quad mounts
SAM: 1x 8 cell Mk29 octuple launcher w/8 x Raytheon/Hughes Seasparrow (RIM-7M) + 16 reloads
CIWS: 1 x Signaal SGE-30 Goal Keeper with GE 30mm
Torpedoes: 4 x 324mm Plessey US Mk 32 Mod 9 in 2 twin tubes w/ Honeywell Mk 46 torpedoesCountermeasures Air: Decoys 2 Lockheed Martin Hycor SBROC Mk 36 quad chaff launchers
Torpedo: Aerojet Nixie AN/SLQ-25 towed torpedo decoy
ECM/ESM: Sphinx; intercept Ramses; jammerAir/Surface Search Signaal LW08 ,2-D Signaal ZW06 Navigation Racal 1226 Combat Data Systems Signaal SEWACO-II Fire Control 1 Signaal STIR 180 (Seasparrow) SATCOM WSC-6 twin aerials, Link 11 Sonars Westinghouse SQS 509,hull mounted This class is more like a Garcia or Knox class fast frigate with a large gun and a BPDMS (Basic Point of Defense Missile System) on board. F 801 Tromp F 806 De Ruyter Length(O/A) 454' (138.4) Beam 48.6' (14.8m) Draft 22' (6.6m) Turbines 2 Rolls Royce Olympus TM3B gas (main) 2 Rolls Royce Tyne RM1A gas (aux) Range 5,000 NM @ 18 kts Horsepower 44,000 shp (main) 8,200 shp (aux) Shafts 2 Max Speed 28 Kts (main) 18 Kts (aux) Main Gun: 2 x Bofors 4.72"/50 cal DP in one twin turret taken from old DD Gelderland
Anti-Air: 2 x 20mm Oerlikon
SSM: 4 x Boeing Harpoon Block 1C in 1 quad mount
1Mk 13 Mod 4 launcher w/40 x GDC Pomona Standard SM-1MR
1 - 8 cell Mk29 octuple launcher w/8 x Raytheon/Hughes Sea sparrow (RIM-7M) + 8 reloads
CIWS 1 x Signaal SGE-30 Goal Keeper with GE 30mm
Torpedoes 6 x 324mm Plessey US Mk 32 Mod 9 in 2 triple tubes w/ Honeywell Mk 46 torpedoesDecoys:
Air: 4 Lockheed Martin Hycor SBROC Mk 36 quad chaff launchers
Torpedo: Aerojet Nixie AN/SLQ-25 towed torpedo decoyECM/ESM Sphinx; intercept Ramses; jammer Air/Surface Search Signaal MTTR/SPS 01, 3-D Navigation Racal 1226 Combat Data Systems Signaal SEWACO-1 VIIB Fire Control Signaal WM25 (Sea sparrow) 2 Raytheon SPG-51C (SM-1MR) SATCOM WSC-6 twin aerials, Link 11 Sonars CWE 610,hull mounted
World Encyclopedia of Combat Aircraft, Crescent Books, New York
World Encyclopedia of Combat Ships, Crescent Books, New York
Jane’s Book of Fighting Ships
Vietnam, the Naval Story. Uhlig
Gunnersmate 3&2 Nonresident Career Course NavEdTra
Fire Control Technician 3 & 2 Nonresident Career Course NavEdTra
QuarterMaster 3 & 2 Nonresident Career Course NavEdTra
Operation Specialist 3 & 2 Nonresident Career Course NavEdTra
Torpedoman 3 & 2 Nonresident career Course NavEdTra
THE DEBATE – ON TOPIC
Blue = Anonymous Source/Sword
One of the reasons for the naval exercises there was to cover the military's presence, since there had been reports of a terrorist taking down an airliner in that area around the time of the Olympics.
Since Clinton hates our military, it is my belief that he wants us to believe that the downing of FL800 was due to friendly fire, and that it was really done by a terrorist with stolen US military weaponry.
If it really had been friendly fire, Clinton would have used the incident to publicly roast the military.
Does the red residue match the propellant or explosive from RAM?
Who was the intended victim on flight 800? I think I remember that someone who was supposed to be on the ron brown flight missed it and was on this one but don't have a name. (is this true?)
…..4) Why? Answer: This is Bill Clinton's favorite method of eliminating any possible links or affiliations with crime. By removing loose ends via his contacts throughout government, or the Dixie Mafia he makes it easier to sustain his agenda as well as support necessary people within his administration, who are his friends. Because we know what happens to those who are not friends of Clinton and get close. Just ask the last guy who was doing research on this subject. Meaning Gray was killed to make it easier for Progressive to acquire Midwest Financial (correct me on the affiliation if I am wrong), so that Webster Hubble could acquire employment after the end of the Clinton administration. How does that tie in? Gray has sufficient monetary resources to stop or stall a hostile take over. When he dies, his estate goes into probate, whether he has a will or not. This suspends all assets, and curtails any fight in defense from a hostile take over.
Also the elimination of Ferrat, the initial suspect in the bombing of Ron Brown's plane, a T-43A which is the military version of the Boeing 737 in Bosnia. ….
……On another note, organized crime is at play. Why? Some guy working for the any of the unions in New York, is under the thumb, or wants a favor from any of the many mob bosses there. He is capable of disabling the aircrafts IFF/UHF transponder. The process is quick and easy without disabling the aircrafts navigation radar. Disabling the radar would have been a flight gripe, and the airplane would have been down. With the transponder disabled, the crew of the aircraft would never know. ….
I'd like to point out also that we have not investigated every passenger who died on TWA800. It is possible one of them was more connected than we realized...
I'm still slightly at a loss (and it serves as a way to keep this bumped)
There was a person named Ferrat on board who was the suspect in the Ron Brown bombing?
There was a person named Gray who was connected with Webster Hubble's future employment opportunities?
What else do we know about them?
5/27/98 AP Zurich The Guardian (London) pg 19 Freepers Wallaby & icwhatudo ".POLICE are investigating the possibility that insurance fraud by a Swiss resident listed among the 230 people killed in the TWA Flight 800 explosion might have been behind the disaster, Swiss television reported last night. Swiss authorities have been investigating Algerian-born Mohammmed Samir Ferrat, for 18 months, the report said. ..A Geneva lawyer, Gerald Page, alleged in an interview for the Swiss television report that Ferrat took out life insurance policies worth several million Swiss francs in the weeks before the plane crashed in July 1996, half an hour after taking off from New York…. On August 19, a month after the crash, the local medical examiner in Suffolk County - in whose jurisdiction the disaster occurred - declared that Mohammed Ferrat had been positively identified as a dead passenger from TWA Flight 800. US investigators counted him out as a suspect early.. The report showed footage of the late US commerce secretary, Ron Brown, at the Washington signing with Ferrat of a pounds 62.5 million contract between Sofin and the US construction firm Chatwick Inc, which was to build residences in the Ivory Coast. Chatwick spent pounds 2.5 million on the project before halting it, the television said.." Background from icwhatudo ".According to a CNN international report, Mohamed Samir Ferrat, an Algerian business associate of Secretary Brown, who was scheduled to accompany Brown on the Bosnian trip but withdrew at the last moment for reasons still unclear, died July 17, on the ill fated TWA Flight 800. Ferrat was initially treated by the FBI as a suspected terrorist in the TWA Flight 800 explosion because he was the sole passenger on the flight roster listed only by last name. The FBI, within hours of beginning their investigation of Ferrat, oddly withdrew, telling the New York Times that "Ferrat was not at all the kind of person to take a bomb on a plane. Nor was he a likely target of a bomb plot."
BROWN'S ASSOCIATE DIED ON TWA 800 http://www.usvetdsp.com/usvet/story23.htm According to a CNN international report, Mohamed Samir Ferrat, an Algerian business associate of Secretary Brown, who was scheduled to accompany Brown on the Bosnian trip but withdrew at the last moment for reasons still unclear, died July 17, on the ill fated TWA Flight 800. Ferrat was initially treated by the FBI as a suspected terrorist in the TWA Flight 800 explosion because he was the sole passenger on the flight roster listed only by last name. The FBI, within hours of beginning their investigation of Ferrat, oddly withdrew, telling the New York Times that "Ferrat was not at all the kind of person to take a bomb on a plane. Nor was he a likely target of a bomb plot. U.S. government investigators have yet to determine whether missile, bomb or mechanical failure brought TWA 800 down, killing all 230 passengers and crew. "Ferrat, it turned out," the New York Times said, "was a wealthy and highly respected businessman, money manager and investor with offices and residences in the Ivory Coast, France and Switzerland . . . FBI agents learned all this without questioning Ferrat's family, friends or business associates, many of whom were gathered in their grief at the family hotel in Virginia." One source, who asked not to be identified, suggested the FBI cleared Ferrat quickly because they either learned of his connection to Secretary Brown or Ferrat may have been on the payroll of U.S. intelligence, possibly the CIA. Ferrat was also involved with Chadwick International Inc., a northern Virginia company that exports modular homes. Chadwick, Inc., founded in 1991, got its start, according to its chairman Ronald M. Nocera, by Ferrat arranging meetings with real estate contacts in Algeria. Nocera said Chadwick, Inc. currently holds or is negotiating deals worth $560 million with developers from Argentina to Vietnam.
Associated Press 1/8/00 "….A wealthy U.S. businessman was reportedly released without conviction after being caught trying to enter New Zealand with more than 3 1/2 ounces of hashish and marijuana. The man's name was suppressed from publication in New Zealand. However, today's Cleveland's Plain Dealer newspaper named the businessman as billionaire Peter B. Lewis. Lewis, 66, is the chairman and chief executive officer of the insurance company Progressive Corp., based in Mayfield Village, Ohio. He has helped bankroll the California-based Americans for Medical Rights, which seeks to legalize marijuana for medical use. …. "
Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance made large donations to Democrats. A definitive agreement was announced 11/6/96 for Progressive Insurance to acquire Midland Financial. The CEO of Midland Financial -Charles H. ("Hank") Gray, III - died in the TWA Flight 800 crash about a month before the possibility of Web Hubbell working for Progressive Life Insurance was discussed between Hubbell and a White House aide.
Do you think maybe he took out the life insurance because he saw that Ron Brown was removed and he knew his number was up? Why take out the insurance now as opposed to months or years previously?
NewsMax.com 11/17/98 Sam Smith "…..-- Hubbell talked from jail with White House aide Marcia Scott. Scott -- after warning Hubbell off a law suit that might hurt HRC -- adds, "Peter Lewis is this very, very wealthy man from Cleveland and, in fact, I talked to him about you. He owns Progressive Insurance Company." Scott said that Lewis thought Hubbell could help set up a fraud division in the company:
HUBBELL: I certainly know about that.
SCOTT: This is why I was talking to you. He said 'God he could . . .could come in and teach us a bunch of stuff.'
HUBBELL: You bet.
SCOTT: I said, 'He's been on both sides of it.'
HUBBELL: I've seen it all. I've seen every bit of it.
Scott also told Hubbell that she had vacationed with Lewis in Italy and flown back to America in his jet with him. And the top White House aide assured Hubbell, "People are starting to talk about what you're going to do next -- how they can help. You've not been forgotten. I mean, people have sought me out to tell me that. Frank was one of them . . .And he's talked to, I think, Mickey and some others."
http://www.oneplace.com/content/Ministries/Missler/tmr2.htm may 19, 2000
http://www.icrn.com/radio_liberty/archives.asp June 30th and June 27th Commander William Donaldson - Update on TWA flight 800
"Who was the intended victim on flight 800?"
There was no "intended victim". The shoot-down was an accident. The Aegis system had a prior record of mistargeting civilian planes and the CEC enhancements apparently did not fix the problem.
"Does the red residue match the propellant or explosive from RAM? "
The red residue is consistant with the combustion byproducts of a rocket motor using powdered aluminum as a fuel, a perchlorate oxydizer, mixed in a silicon rubber bonding agent. Variants of this formula are used by all solid fuel military missiles. The red residue is therefore consistant with RAM, Standard, and Sea Sparrow missiles, as well as all sub-launched missiles other than cruise missiles.
"1) Who, in the various departments of the Executive Branch - besides the DoD, knew about the activities in W-105? That is to say, who would know that W-105 was an unsafe area? Who would have a need to know? Would not the following organizations be appraised of the unsafe nature for civilian traffic in the area: DoD, DOT - FAA, NTSB, USCG? "
When the Navy activates the warning zones, notices are sent to the FAA, Coast Guard, indeed anyone who is responsible for any kind of activity in the area. …..
The Navy at first tried to deny the warning zones were even active that night, but the paper trail proved otherwise.
" 2) Who were the Air Traffic Controllers responsible for the flight path safety of TWA 800? Who was the Air Traffic Controller who gave the order to fly into that section of W-105? "
TWA 800 was not actually inside W-105 when it was struck. It was just outside the boundary.
What appears to have happened is that a target drone was launched from Long Island headed south into W-105 as a test of the CEC system, while USS Normandy linked its CEC systems with the CEC simulators at Wallops Island and Dam Neck to test the networking. A test missile was launched from yet another platform, possibly a submarine connected to CEC via laser link with an overhead aircraft/satellite. That test missile started searching for its target at a moment when the radar which was illuminating the target drone also, quite by accident, illuminated the 747. The test missile acquired the wrong target, left W-105, headed for TWA 800, and was in terminal guidence mode (no longer needing the external radar illumination) before anyone knew what was happening.
Air Traffic Controllers don't give orders, they merely advise. In the case of TWA 800, the controllers did advise TWA 800 to take a more northerly route than it normally would have, in order to stay away from the warning zones.
"0 point - TWA800 is at 22177.4 feet, or 3.65 NM out traveling at 300 knots or 506.3 fps. First 5" round out from mount one (forward mount). The 5" has a muzzle velocity of 2650 fps, this corrects my previous 4100 fps. "
The problem with this whole theory is that most of the witnesses described the object streaking towards TWA 800 as displaying non-ballistic motions, i.e. midcourse corrections, something shells from a 5 inch mount do not do.
"By the way, there's supposed to be a press conference Monday about FL800 - I think with Comm. Donaldson."
Yes, and it is at that press conference that Sanders will release the photos that he claims prove that the wreckage of TWA 800 was tampered with to conceal he rue cause of the crash.
The problem I have with Donaldson is that he is himself a Navy man, and therefore not objective as to just where the missile came from. He still insists that it had to be a terrorist missile even though the actions of the Navy at the time, and of the administration since do not support the theory of an unknown origin for the missile.
"If it really had been friendly fire, Clinton would have used the incident to publicly roast the military. "
Not with a tightly contested election coming up. As far as the voters are concerned, the buck still stops at the oval office. and indications are that the tsts for CEC were moved from Kauai to New York on orders from the White House, who wanted the system deployed before congress decided to defund the system.
Left unsaid is the basis for anyone to assume it was a terrorist missile.
After all, no wreckage of said missile has ever been aknowledged to have been recovered, so it's not like the FBI or NTSB have a factual basis for determining just what kind of missile was involved.
Donaldson claims that a terrorist on a boat just might possibly have hit it the 747. But would a terrorist really have launched there?
The fact is that, had it not been for the chance overflight of a US Air passenger jet descending into Rhode Island, flight 800 would have been far higher, out of range of all known man-portable missiles.
What kind of terrorists go to the trouble and expense of acquiring a man-portable missile and then positions themselves at a launch point where all the potential targets are hopelessly out of range. Wouldn't it make far more sense to sail the boat further west, paralleling the coast of Long Island, to where the departure path from the airport bring the targets down within easy range? Of course it would. You would be no closer to shore, but the target would be down lower.
And yet Donaldson is trying to paint a picture of terrorists smart enough to bring a missile into the United States and too stupid to locate the optimum launch site!
Why does Donaldson think it just HAD to be terrorists?
Well, because the U.S. Navy (an institution with a prior record of killing passenger jets) says that even though they had missile-capable ship and planes in the area engaged in an exercise, and even though the Navy had activated aviation warning zones consistent with the firing of missiles, that honest-to-goodness, hand on a stack-O-bibles the missile didn't come from them.
A little history lesson here.
"Remember the Maine". While sitting in Havana harbor, a coal dust explosion destroyed the Battleship Maine. The Navy claimed, honest-to-goodness, hand on a stack-O-bibles, that the ship had been attacked and sunk by Spanish forces and we went to war with Spain.
In 1944, improperly stored munitions caused an explosion at Port Chicago in California. When the mostly black crewmen refused to go back to work in unsafe conditions, the Navy, instead of correcting the safety problems, claimed, honest-to-goodness, hand on a stack-O-bibles, that the men were insubordinate and threw them in prison until the end of the war.
Some years back, the number two turret of the Battleship Iowa exploded, killing 47 sailors. Despite clear evidence that the outdated and unstable gun propellent had been improperly stored, and despite clear evidence that the gun crew over rammed the gun charge, and despite PROOF that over-ramming would detonate the unstable propellent, the Navy claimed that honest-to-goodness, hand on a stack-O-bibles, the gun turret explosion was actually a suicide by an unhappy gay sailor!
In October of 1996, the U.S. Navy, in an interview with the French Associated Press, insisted, honest-to-goodness, hand on a stack-O-bibles, that there were no submarines near flight 800.
In November of 1996, the U.S. Navy, at a Pentagon Press Conference, insisted, honest-to-goodness, hand on a stack-O-bibles, that the closest warship to the crash of flight 800 was the U.S.S. Normandy, 185 miles away.
Four months later the Navy finally admitted that there were three nuclear submarines right off of the coast of Long Island at the time.
At that November press conference, the claim was made that the Navy aircraft in the area, an Orion P-3, honest-to-goodness, hand on a stack-O-bibles, could not fire missiles. Since then, official US Government photos have surfaced showing that the P-3 can and does fire missiles.
With these examnples of the Navy's pride fresh in our collective memories, let's take a look at what we DO know about the event that brought down flight 800.
Man-portable missiles guide on Infra-red. That means that they home in on the heat from an engine. None of the four engines of the downed 747 show signs of missile impact. The 747 is designed to survive the catastrophic loss of an entire engine.
According to the NTSB's own sequencing report, a non-explosive (leaving no explosive residue) event tore out a section of the cabin of flight 800 near rows 17-19. The resultant sudden decompression of the cabin blew seats, cabin debris, and bodies (lacking any burn marks) out into the sky.
That's the key point. There was no explosive residue at the impact point. No burning, and no trace of the chemicals one would find from a non-detonated warhead shattering against the side of the 747. The test used by the FBI was so sensitive, it registered a false-positive on the remnants of a bomb detection exercise conducted on the plane a few months before the crash. This same test found nothing at rows 17-19. This means that the missile had no actual warhead.
What kind of missile has no warhead? Terrorists missiles go BOOM! But missiles used in training or tests have dummy warheads, either inert packages or added instruments of the same size and weight as real explosives. In many cases, missile undergoing tests have radar blip enhancers (non ATC data encoded transponders) to make them easier to track.
We have two scenarios to choose from.
In one, terrorists smuggle a missile into the US, sail out to sea to where there are no targets within range and just sit there until random chance brings one down to only 3000 feet higher than a Stinger will reach and fire off a one in a million shot to hit the jumbo jet, but golly gee the missile, instead of aiming at the hot engine like the owners manual says it will hits the cool passenger section of the plane and only then do we find out that Achmed's Missiles-R-Us didn't include any BANG in this model.
The Navy, having activated the warning zones, is running a live fire exercise of the Cooperative Engagement Capability between the P-3 and the three submarines, some surface ships, and a target drone. A missile, launched from one of the submerged submarines, emerges from the water and sees not one, but two inviting targets, and locks onto the larger one; the 747.
No terrorists would have launched from where the 747 exploded. A deliberate attack would have occured further to the west and used an exploding warhead.
One of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries involves a crime committed by the owner of the house. The vital clue is that during the crime, the watchdog did not bark. Had the criminal been anyone BUT the owner, the dog would have barked.
Let's say that a boat (or the much hypothesized surplus Russian Diesel/Electric submarine) with a launch rail and radar acquisition gear has sailed along the coast of Long Island and flipped a shot off at the 747.
A lot of people, including several pilots, saw it. Chris Baur knew it was a missile immediately. As of November 1997, over 200 eyewitnesses thought they had seen an object rise up from the water's surface and approach the 747. Those with military experience described the object as a rocket, missile, or "ordnance explosion". Those with less military experience called it a firework or a flare. The overwhelming preponderance of eyewitness evidence is that there was a missile up there with the 747 (which is why the eyewitnesses were not allowed to speak at the NTSB's hearings in Baltimore).
Had the source of the missile been a strange vessel, one would expect there to have been a flurry of activity to chase down the source of the missile. There was a P-3 already overhead dropping sonobouys, plus two Los Angeles class fast attack subs. They would have immediately tried to chase down the boat with the launcher. Other naval forces in the area would have moved in, called into the fray by those on the scene.
Party-goers on the beach saw the missile, and they were not even on lookout duty. It is inconceivable that a missile could be fired right next to an ongoing naval exercise and escape detection by the world's best equipped high-tech Navy. Missiles, even man-portable ones, are a threat to Navy aircraft such as the P-3.
The Navy, defender of our coasts and protector of our shores, when detecting a missile launch that brings down a 747, should assume that an attack by an enemy is underway. That's what the Navy is trained to do. That's what We The People pay them to do. There is no reason for them to do otherwise.
Navy aircraft are equipped with a sensor system to counter the threat of man-portable missiles. I got to examine one close up when I toured a US Navy landing ship and was allowed to sit inside a Harrier. Every aircraft on the landing ship had this system installed.
Mounted on the airframe are four sensors, quartering the airspace around the aircraft The sensor is a wide angle lens, slightly reminiscent of the eye of HAL 9000. The output of the system is tied into the cockpit MFD, and the system is on when the avionics package is. The sensor is designed to react to the IR spectral signature of a burning missile plume, even if the missile is aimed right at the aircraft.
The point is that even if the P-3 crew wasn't watching for the missile, the anti-missile sensors on every Naval aircraft and the corresponding detectors on the naval ships in the area would have detected the missile.
The Navy is know known to have been testing its Aegis-CEC system when Flight 800 was shot down, a system designed to detect and respond to missile launches, a system already known to be able to do that from the MOUNTAINTOP series of tests at the Pacific Missile Test Range near Kauai.
It is inconceivable that the U.S. Navy missed the launch of a missile that took place in the middle of a test of a system that detects missile launches.
Following launch detection, the Navy was unusually positioned to search for and prosecute any boat or submarine from which the missile was launched, with a sonobouy equipped P-3, plus two Los Angeles class fast-attack submarines, plus a "boomer", all with the very best in sensors and in the immediate vicinity, backed up by other naval assets in the area, including the USS Normandy. It would have been expected to see all available Naval and Aviation assets surge into the Atlantic to establish an interdiction zone and block the possible escape of any launch boat.
But there was no fray. The Naval forces flew and sailed to the scene of the crash (followed by deep salvage vessels), kicking out the divers from the NYPD (who had jurisdiction in those waters) but the flotilla of ships and planes one would expect to sail out into the Atlantic to search for the launch boat (or sub) never occurred. Surface radar shows the fleet continuing into W-105 as if nothing had happened.
And, that's just the Navy.
Also on scene was a Coast Guard cutter, on routine patrol, with lookouts on duty that could not possibly miss what so many on shore saw. Why didn't they look for the source of the missile?
There were also two Air National Guard aircraft on the area, on routine exercises. Is it really possible they did not see what so many other pilots in the area did not see?
Given that multiple simultaneous terrorist attacks are not without historical precedent, it would be a foolish commander indeed who would risk his brass on the assumption there would be no more missiles. There should have been an increase in the alert status up and down the seaboard with increased patrols and surveillance.
At the very least, the FAA, with a dead 747 and evidence of unknown traffic in the area on the radar scopes, should have, as a reasonable precaution, re-routed other civilian traffic away from the area and out of reach of a follow-up missile. The paper trail indicates that it was suspected at the time of the crash that there had been a missile. No FAA controller would gamble the lives of passengers that there wouldn't be a second missile. They had diverted traffic once that night for the Navy exercise, why not a second time? The Olympics were starting that week. Terrorism was on everyone's mind.
But there was no search for the source of the missile. There was no increase in alert level. And while the wreckage of flight 800 burned on the water, passenger jets cruised the airspace overhead.
None of the reactions that should have followed the launch of a missile from an unknown source happened. None.
The dog did not bark.
Ergo, the source of the missile was already known at the time.
And isn't it strange that the very same people who insist that the United States government would never, ever cover-up an accidental shoot down by the Navy are the same people who insist that the United States government is covering up for terrorists.
I don't know why you guys are still beating this dead horse. The Normandy did not have CEC installed. The only ship in the Atlantic fleet who may have had it was the Kennedy. Kennedy is a carrier and has only Sea Sparrow and CWIS on board for defense. I work with AEGIS and it has no tendency to lock onto civilian aircraft. It also does not engage opening targets which is what 800 would have been. Opening targets are not classed as a threat. You have so many mistakes and wrong statements in your write up that it is funny. I know we all consider Clinton capable of anything and he probably is but you can bet that if a Navy ship shot down an airliner someone, many someones would talk. Don't let your desire for a plot involving Clinton over ride your common sense.
willy,no matter how you slice it or dice it, that jet,full of innocent souls, was SHOT DOWN BY A MISSLE. Just pretend and say U.S.A. Forces had nothing to do with it. There STILL is the COVER-UP thing going on involving our beloved F.B.I. How about that.
Rebuttal to Submarine and Aircraft from Source:
There are some things you can stand, and there are some things you can’t. This whole submarine thing and aircraft thing really get to me. Some of your respondents have no knowledge except through the Discovery Channel. I’ll approach them logically with the same technical knowledge, from experience I might add, as before.
Submarines do not have an anti-air capability! What would it serve for a submarine to be on the surface against some airplane? Submarines do not have the air search radar a surface ship has. If so, what mast is used? When I say mast I mean which hydraulically actuated device in the sail, aft of the periscopes does a submarine use? Yes, there is a radar, but it is specifically used for navigating channels, and busy water ways, similar to the SPS-10 antenna a surface ship has.
Do you think the type 2 D, E, or F attack periscope sees aircraft? Or maybe it’s the type 18 periscope? Only one of these periscopes has any radar capability. If you can tell me what it specifically can do, you win the brass ring at the fair.
Or maybe you might think it to be the BRA-34 mast? What does that do, on a SSN 637 class, SSN 688 class, SSN 726 class, SSN 751 class, or even the newer SSN 21 class. Have any of you been on a submarine? Half my naval career was spent working with submarines, and the only class I have never worked on is the Sea Wolf, SSN 21.
Now logically speaking, where are you going to place an anti-air system on a submarine? What type of missiles are you going to use, or do you believe the U.S. Navy would like a multi billion dollar ship, that wallows on the surface to engage aircraft with a crew served weapon system like Mistrael? Where are you going to set up even with just the sail out of the water?
There is no room. there are too many holes throughout the HY-80 or HY-81 plate that comprises that surface. On top of that, you are going to expose the sonar absorption material to high heat? I don't think your squadron commander would appreciate it. Where are you going to stow said weapon? When the Scorpion and the Thresher both went down with all hands, they both had the capability to dive deeper than 2500 feet, and travel at a rate faster than 35 knots.
What surface to air missile system is going to handle that kind of pressure? Where are you going to fire said weapon? Sail planes? As I said before, one of the two submarines was a SSN 751 class submarine with no sail planes. What is the trade off? A few miles of anti-air capability against a Mk. 50 torpedo, a weapon powered by a gas turbine engine that uses Oto fuel? Or maybe a Maverick, or Bullpup, Harpoon, Tomahawk; or even western European or Soviet counter parts? I think not.
A submarine is more effective using its sonar, either BQS-15, or the new BSY-1(passively, I might add). This would allow the fleet the ability to process water born target information over the horizon in the theater, and does not compromise stealth or weapons delivery capability.
If an aircraft, were to have fired the missile, intended for a drone, and I’ve been to Dam Neck, VA., then why do witnesses indicate the missile rose up in elevation? Would not a missile an air launched missile appear from a similar attitude as the 747? Would not the missile seem to be heading in a straight horizontal line? If it were a missile from an aircraft, what type? This would be denoted by speed characteristics: Phoenix - cruise speed around Mach 5.8 at 40,000 feet, AMRAAM - about Mach 4 or slightly faster than 2300 fps at 40,000 feet, or Sidewinder - Mach 3 or 2000 fps at 40,000 feet. You are correct in your statement Mr. Rivero, about the link, but that capability has been active since the early 1970's. NTDS and ATDS have been capable for almost thirty years, hence the sale of E2C Hawk Eyes and F- 14's together have never been authorized by Congress. Now if you are alluding to the use and testing of a new breed of missile, I’ll buy that, but still, my previous argument stands.
Mistrael is a crew served weapon. It is big, bulky, and takes time to set up. And you are going to do this in New York? Hello! Would not the missile seem to come from a spectators shoulder. I say this by meaning wouldn’t a spectator se this as coming from behind them, or from the shore?
And finally, it is obvious none of you paid any attention to my point about ERGM. This taken out of R&D, and placed on ships for fleet testing in 1996.
This weapon will
B)stabalizing fins deploy (like APFSSD-Armor Piercing Fin Stabalized Sabot Discarding rounds used in tanks,
C) rocket motor burn,
D) canard deployment,
E) guidance by GPS to airborne or surface target.
Range 40 NM. Anything over 40 NM, and the ERGM round would have to glide to the target with a certain marked loss in velocity. I believed I informed Alamo-girl of that quite a while ago, and yet it wasn’t even broached. [my note: sorry, I didn’t understand the significance the first time around…] Full access to fleet use would be in the early part of 2000, 2001, or 2002.
Also I would like to indicate that you failed to recognize the use of RAM in conjunction with the use of guns. Since, like Mr. Rivero has said this weapon, RAM, like both the AMRAAM and Sidewinder have continuous /expanding rod warheads, wouldn’t this lead to complete distruction of the missile/projectile? Hence the inability of any entities to find said weapon.
From Mr. Rivero:"Some years back, the number two turret of the Battleship Iowa exploded, killing 47 sailors. Despite clear evidence that the outdated and unstable gun propellent had been improperly stored, and despite clear evidence that the gun crew over rammed the gun charge, and despite PROOF that over-ramming would detonate the unstable propellent, the Navy claimed that honest-to-goodness, hand on a stack-O-bibles, the gun turret explosion was actually a suicide by an unhappy gay sailor!"
This my friends is due to the inability of the NIS to perform their duties efficiently and professionally. The truth of the matter was a GMCM, who had Korean war experience, was in reality, playing with excessive bag loads for the 16"/55 guns. When the wiper opened the breach, LP air back blast from the bore forced hot cinders to land on the loading tray that holds the shell and bags of powder. After the round had been loaded, the powder bags were placed on the tray, prior to loading, and were ignited by the same hot cinders.
From Mr. Rivero: "At that November press conference, the claim was made that the Navy aircraft in the area, an Orion P-3, honest-to-goodness, hand on a stack-O-bibles, could not fire missiles. Since then, official US Government photos have surfaced showing that the P-3 can and does fire missiles. "
Please Mr. Rivero, tell those who are watching what types of missiles the P-3 Orion can fire. I do believe those are air to surface, like Harpoon and Tomahawk. Since when have the P-3's been outfitted with an air to air suite? Hm?
From Mr. Rivero:"What kind of missile has no warhead? Terrorists missiles go BOOM! But missiles used in training or tests have dummy warheads, either inert packages or added instruments of the same size and weight as real explosives. In many cases, missile undergoing tests have radar blip enhancers (non ATC data encoded transponders) to make them easier to track."
Then why Mr. Rivero did the Tomahawks used on Catalina Island in the Pacific blow up? And destroy nice little targets like a Mig-25, a bunker, and a ship? Three separate missile shots.
From Mr. Rivero:"Mounted on the airframe are four sensors, quartering the airspace around the aircraft The sensor is a wide angle lens, slightly reminiscent of the eye of HAL 9000. The output of the system is tied into the cockpit MFD, and the system is on when the avionics package is. The sensor is designed to react to the IR spectral signature of a burning missile plume, even if the missile is aimed right at the aircraft."
This is a germanium lense with an I/R photonic sensor that reads (actually senses infra red - heat) in the area of .3 to .5 nanometers, and is necessary for all aircraft (Navy, Air Force, Marine Corp, Army, and Coast Guard) to a detect launch missile launch, thereby allowing the pilot and ESM/ECM operator to deploy chaff, flares, and in the case of the C-130 Spectre, F-111 Raven, EA6B Prowler - used by the Air force and the Navy: they have the ability to white out an entire area of at least 25 miles in radius.
From Mr. Rivero: "Following launch detection, the Navy was unusually positioned to search for and prosecute any boat or submarine from which the missile was launched, with a sonobouy equipped P-3, plus two Los Angeles class fast-attack submarines, plus a "boomer", all with the very best in sensors and in the immediate vicinity, backed up by other naval assets in the area, including the USS Normandy. It would have been expected to see all available Naval and Aviation assets surge into the Atlantic to establish an interdiction zone and block the possible escape of any launch boat."
The capabilities of BQS-15 and BSY-1, would have allowed any of the submarines operating in the area to detect any craft cycling pumps to submerge or surface. A surface missile launch from any ship other than those in position and tracked by the associated computers would have been able to discern and locate said Soviet intruder. Very poor choice in my professional opinion. The Sono buoys, of which I am sure you have no knowledge of come in what types sir? How about SS-BT, SS-VC, and SS-CTD. BT= Bathathermygraph, SV=Sound Velocity, and CTD=Conductivity, Depth, and Temperature, specifically designed for an Arctic environment. You can't hide from that one. It deploys a sensor with H20 temperature, mineral, and pressure readings every fathom. I hear you, and then I lose you. I deploy this from my 3" launcher. I find the thermal layer you are hiding in, and I tune BQS-15, or BSY-1 for the proper frequency. Or I deploy helicopters with dipable sonar, and look for your sorry butt.
From [twinmag]:"I don't have any expertise in this area but it sounds entirely too contrived and detailed. Almost like it had been made up or written by Tom Clancy. Why would a lurker put forth the effort to come up with this if not to deceive?"
As far as your lack of experience, I couldn’t agree more.
You may also want to inform him that his theory about a clash with U.S. and Soviet ships in the med, is old news. The Americans have been working on that premise since the late sixties. The Soviets are flying Flankers off those boats, and they are cheap copies of F-111.
Just to verify Michael, The RAM missile does not have an explosive warhead? This expanding rod warhead doesn't seem like it would leave burns. So a RAM does fit the evidence as we know it. Correct?
"Submarines do not have an anti-air capability! What would it serve for a submarine to be on the surface against some airplane? Submarines do not have the air search radar a surface ship has."
This gentleman, for all his jargon, does not know what he is talking about. The newer Russians subs carry an IR guided SUBSAM in their sails and US boomers carry the British Short Starburst SAM missile. Subs do have radar that searches not only the ocean surface but up in the air, and have had that capability for years.
More to the point, this gentleman cannot make any claims about what is in classified weapons development, and the tests being conducted off of Long Island four years ago were of new and classified weapons systems. He cannot possibly know how far along the US SUBSAM has come along. Keep in mind that the VLS tubes installed on all the newer US submarines are the same size as the Mark 41 surface launcher, which launches surface to air missiles including the Standard.
As for his claim about a sub not needing anti-air capability, he needs to pay more attention to the recent shift in focus of the United States Navy from blue-water combat to littoral zone combat, a theater of operations in which submarines operating at the edge of the battle group may not have the luxury of a lot of water under them. As any submarine commander will tell you, aircraft remain the single greatest threat to a submarine.
From my point of view, your logic in this statement More to the point, this gentleman cannot make any claims about what is in classified weapons development, and the tests being conducted off of Long Island four years ago were of new and classified weapons systems leaves you at a disadvantage.
From where I sit, the logic that "you can’t prove me wrong because evidence doesn’t exist" appears not only in the outrageous government defense in the current Waco civil trial - but also - in all kinds of bizarre, frequently ignored theories such as alien beings, time travel, secret societies, super powers, etc. So on either side of a debate, it’s a forfeiture that could cause readers to dismiss the argument.
To sum it up, just like you assert that he cannot make claims about classified technology, he could assert that you cannot make claims about someone you don't know.
"From where I sit, the logic that "you can’t prove me wrong because evidence doesn’t exist" appears not only in the outrageous government defense in the current Waco civil trial - but also - in all kinds of bizarre, frequently ignored theories such as alien beings, time travel, secret societies, super powers, etc. So on either side of a debate, it’s a forfeiture that could cause readers to dismiss the argument. "
I think you missed the point.
The claim that there is no American SUBSAM is logically flawed because it ignores the fact that many weapons systems are classified while in development. For anyone to state catagorically that there is no SUBSAM is to suggest that the person making the claim has access to unprecedented amounts of classified information about all our weapons development programs at all of our weapons labs. Clearly, that is impossible. While I agree that this by itself does not constitute proof of the existance of a SUBSAM, we must not allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking that the presence of an American SUBSAM has in any way been ruled out. It hasn't.
Considering how many times the Navy changed its story about how many and which submarines were present in the area it should be obvious that something about the submarines makes the Navy very nervous indeed.
We do know a few facts. The claim that submarines have no use for and do not deploy SUBSAMS is proven false by the Russian SUBSAM and the Shorts Starburst carried by US boomers. We also know that a laser-based means for high speed communication between a launch-depth submarine and overhead aircraft/satellites, of sufficient bandwidth to transmit targeting data and CEC launch orders, is in existance in the fleet. According to the New York Times, at least one of the aircraft involved in the CEC exercise was illuminating the surface of the ocean with lasers that night. The vertical launch tubes in the latest US subs match the surface launchers used to launch surface to air missiles such as Standard, making the adaptation of such a missile to sub use quite possible.
The tests being conducted off of Long Island when TWA 800 was shot down were of new weapons and new weapons systems. By definition, we cannot know how many classified systems were out there and being tested that night. It therefore follows that nobody can state there was no SUBSAM. The presence of a SUBSAM therefore remains an open issue.
From Source on New Statements
In response to their new statements, and having worked with the Trident Program for three years in Bangor, Wa. (Near Silverdale outside of Bremerton).
Mr. Rivero says: "This gentleman, for all his jargon, does not know what he is talking about. The newer Russians subs carry an IR guided SUBSAM in their sails and US boomers carry the British Short Starburst SAM missile. Subs do have radar that searches not only the ocean surface but up in the air, and have had that capability for years."
May I again inquire as to where these said SubSAM unit is at? Firstly, there is no room between the 8L and the 15L periscopes. The radar unit, which is equivalent to the SPS-10 navigation radar, reiterating a previous point is just aft of the periscopes. Definitely no room between both BRA-34's. The ESM/ECM mast takes up too much room, so the NAV ET’s aboard rely on E&E adapter of both the 8L and the 15L periscopes to do a lot of the ESM redundancy work. That would leave the after end, but as you can see, that area is occupied by the snorkel. You know, the one that allows the Fairbanks Morse Diesel Electric Generator to breath at periscope depth. And a quiz for you gentlemen. What is allowable speed for any mast to be exposed: faired, or unfaired?
Mr. Rivero says:"More to the point, this gentleman cannot make any claims about what is in classified weapons development, and the tests being conducted off of Long Island four years ago were of new and classified weapons systems. He cannot possibly know how far along the US SUBSAM has come along. Keep in mind that the VLS tubes installed on all the newer US submarines are the same size as the Mark 41 surface launcher, which launches surface to air missiles including the Standard."
You will notice aboard existing Sprucans, Tico class cruisers, and the Arleigh Burke class destroyers, that all VLS systems are MK 41. That is for deployment of SM2, your standard, which in reality is a RIM 67 Block 2 C variant, the Harpoon, Tomahawk, and VLA (ASROC to you novices). If you notice on the foreign contingent in my research project, there are foreign units with VLS Sparrows. The SSN 688, 688 i flight, and 751's all have MK 41's to facilitate deployment of Harpoon and Tomahawk, reiterating my research paper again. This is to facilitate more room, additional twelve rounds of AdCap 48's in the Torpedo room
So you’re telling me the U.S. Navy is going to allow a submarine to give its position away by flooding the launcher, and letting fly a missile, which has no radar to guide it to the target, because any good sub C.O. will tell you a mast out of the water while planes are looking for you is a bad thing! And this round will magically acquire it’s target, and kill it, while other planes, and helicopters, for that matter are in the area. Not too bright.
You guys need to not only study up, you need experience. When you come back after twenty years in the navy, then we can talk.
Every thing I have said is verifiable. Just get a clearance. TTFN.
What happened to the work done by the guy who reconstructed the tapes ?
Has Richard Hirsh and Shoemaker done anything new ?
Mike its been a long time since I read TWA threads but your anon poster alomost sounds like the cargo door guy without the cargo door. Lots of details but illogical conclusions and lots of use of the authority fallacy.
My guess is he will go on at length giving great detail and specifications but never ever being relevant to the topic and always falling back on some superior secret knowledge.
With the actual cover-up in total collapse and the government proven in court to be lying about TWA 800, the goal of the disinfo operators is to generate as much confusion as possible to delay the formation of consensus as to exactly what did happen. That's why you have posters proposing silly theories like the 5 inch gun mount, even though the witness statements clearly indicate non-ballistic motions. The goal isn't to seriously suggest that TWA 800 was brought down by artillery, but to simply manufacture arguments that the government propagandists at the networks can use to claim that the TWA 800 "conspiracy wackos" (Cpyrt 2000 White House) can't decide just what it it they do think happened.
The facts remain....
1. Witnesses saw an object emitting light, leaving a thin white smoke trail, and executing mid course corrections, rise up from the ocean where a Navy exercise was taking place and streak towards the 747 just before it exploded.
2. None of the military units or governmental agencies reacted to the shoot down in a manner which would support the claim that the missile originated from an unknown party.
3. The government has been shown in court to be rigging tests and lying about the acts in the matter of TWA 800, and has been caught lying about the presence of naval assets in the area near TWA 800, in particular the presence of submarines.
The sad tragedy in all this is that if the government had admitted the truth when it happened, it would all be forgotten history by now, no more remembered than the time USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger jet by accident.
It is the cover-up that keeps this scandal alive and fresh in everyone's mind. With the possible exception of Waco, the cover-up of TWA 800 has done more to destroy what little trust the American people had in their government than any other event in recent times. And still, probably because they don't know what else to do, the shills and spooks keep on playing the same old outdated cold-war propaganda games which have not and will not work in the technological 90s.
Years ago, when I was working in Munich, I used to bump into those sad, pathetic, former Nazis who would lurch at tourists from dark allies, and in between muttering about spare change, would insist there was no holocaust, there was no holocaust, there was no holocaust. No doubt, the "useful idiots" over at ONI will probably end up the same way, trapped by their own denial, drooling in their shoes in some retirement home, insisting there was no missile, there was no missile, there was no missile.
There is no need to presume there can be only one rationale explanation for a tragedy like Waco or TWA800. I’m sure there will never be a single official position on Free Republic for either of the mysteries or for other mysteries like OKC, Mena, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Paul Wilcher, etc.
Michael, what is really strange in this case is that both you and the source say that TWA800 was shot down by naval forces in the area and there was a coverup. On the major points you agree, the differences are in the how and why - it would or could have happened. You say by submarine using classified technology that cannot be confirmed in the public domain. The source says by surface vessel using known technology. On the why, you say it was an accidental targeting and he says that it was intentional, that someone on the ground disabled the IFF/UHF transponder on the airplane.
IMHO, both theories have merit and Freepers and Lurkers should examine and arrive at their own, personal, conclusions.
Alamo-girl, I am somewhat shocked that someone with your reputation as a researcher would have misread my comments. Please check post #32, in which I state that the launch platform for the missile was possibly a submarine.
My reasons for suggesting such a possibility do not rely on the inability of someone to prove the negative, but in the US Navy's rather obvious lies regarding the presence of submarines in the area that night, first admitting to the presence of a single sub, then denying any were present, then re-admitting to one, then three, then four. The possibility of a submarine launch was raised in response to assertions that the missile would HAVE to come from an Aegis class surface ship. Certainly there has been much inside information to support the testing of a CEC-capable SUBSAM that night, and I am not the only person to have suggested this possibility.
The reason I pointed out that most weapons systems are classified during development was to refute the claim that anyone could know for a certainty there was no US SUBSAM. Clearly, such a claim is insupportable.
In summation, by statement from post #32 stands. We cannot exclude the possibility that the missile that killed TWA 800 came from a submarine. We cannot assume we know exactly which platform the missile was launched from. The whole point of CEC is that any ordnance, anywhere in the battle group, can be employed by the battle management systems.
Indeed, your response in post #32 could have gone either way, but your "either or" scenario in post #35 which disses the shoulder launch terrorist alternative - identifies the source as a submarine:
The Navy, having activated the warning zones, is running a live fire exercise of the Cooperative Engagement Capability between the P-3 and the three submarines, some surface ships, and a target drone. A missile, launched from one of the submerged submarines, emerges from the water and sees not one, but two inviting targets, and locks onto the larger one; the 747....
Let's say that a boat (or the much hypothesized surplus Russian Diesel/Electric submarine) with a launch rail and radar acquisition gear has sailed along the coast of Long Island and flipped a shot off at the 747. ….A lot of people, including several pilots, saw it. Chris Baur knew it was a missile immediately. As of November 1997, over 200 eyewitnesses thought they had seen an object rise up from the water's surface and approach the 747. ……
And of course post #76 and #84 are submarine oriented …. Hence, I gathered your position is that it probably was a submarine.
Your remark in #101That's why you have posters proposing silly theories like the 5 inch gun mount, even though the witness statements clearly indicate non-ballistic motions is contradicted by the source’s remark in post #71:
…..it is obvious none of you paid any attention to my point about ERGM. This taken out of R&D, and placed on ships for fleet testing in 1996.
This weapon will
B)stabalizing fins deploy (like APFSSD-Armor Piercing Fin Stabalized Sabot Discarding rounds used in tanks,
C) rocket motor burn,
D) canard deployment,
E) guidance by GPS to airborne or surface target.
Range 40 NM. Anything over 40 NM, and the ERGM round would have to glide to the target with a certain marked loss in velocity. ……. Full access to fleet use would be in the early part of 2000, 2001, or 2002.
Also I would like to indicate that you failed to recognize the use of RAM in conjunction with the use of guns. Since, like Mr. Rivero has said this weapon, RAM, like both the AMRAAM and Sidewinder have continuous /expanding rod warheads, wouldn’t this lead to complete distruction of the missile/projectile? Hence the inability of any entities to find said weapon.
As to the claim that TWA 800 was taken down deliberately, why would anyone deliberately bring down the 747 in shallow waters where the wreckage could be recovered, so close to land where so many witnesses saw what happened?
Possibly to keep from leaving a high explosive evidence trail and/or make one of the naval groups take the blame for it. It’s the same scenario as the Ron Brown crash. If someone wanted to bump off the two bosses over John Huang why not use an explosive instead of the Cilipi beacon (or whatever) to crash it into a mountain? Accidents are much more convenient for a coverup, don’t you think?
Why use a missile that involves so many people and results in so many witness problems, when sabotage (such as that used to bring down the aircraft carrying so many other administration enemies) uses fewer people, has a track record of success, and is easier to cover up?
I think that is the source’s point. Having someone on the ground disable the IFF/UHF transponder on the airplane knowing the battle group is out there is a great way to setup an accident with no evidence trail.
And, finally, why do people who insist that the Navy crews would never cover up for an accident seem to assume those same crews would sit still for deliberate murder?
Perhaps because they may think that are covering their own mistake under a perilously anti-military administration with shrinking budgets, not yet realizing that the accident could have been planned - or "knowing" that it was planned but being unable to prove it. Or perhaps it was one of the other foreign ships and silence is a "national security" payback of some sort.
General Response from Source:
I will have to concede one point about submarine launched missiles, in the order of anti- air. During the 1960's , the Soviets used a small rocket (non-guided), that was compressed air launched (encapsulated) thirty feet under the surface which would then ignite upon entering breathable air. The weapon had no guidance, and would deploy a blast fragmentation warhead. The blast fragmentation was similar to a cluster pod like the Beluga we use now in cruise missiles and air dropped cluster munitions.
The problem, as I have eluded to in the past responding to Mr. Rivera and his constituents inputs, so to speak, is the giving away of ones position. In the American aspect, use of a weapon such as this would mean having to try and elude a Type 65 Soviet torpedo. Which by the way can be set to run at either 55 knots for 15 nautical miles, or 35 knots for 55 nautical miles. Type of propulsion is unknown to myself.
The obverse for Soviet, Chinese, or what ever little brown water navy is the possibility that you may suck up a Mk. 46 or Mk. 50 torpedo. With an H-2 (Kaman Sea Sprite with dip able sonar) that means at least one torpedo; with an H-3 (Sea King with dip able sonar) that means at least two, or possibly four torpedoes; with the H-60 (Sea Hawk with 25 sonar buoys) that means two torpedoes; with an S-3 (Viking with 60 sonar buoys) that means four torpedoes in either the anti-sub configuration carrying two Side Winders, or standoff configuration carrying two Harpoons, and the P-3 (Orion with 87 sonar buoys) that means eight torpedoes with 4 Harpoons.
Would you like to give up your crews lives to the kind of odds that would favor the aircraft? Especially with torpedoes that are very fast, have decent range, and featuring magnetic and accoustic lock on capability. Something like a Mk. 46 or Mk. 50 which can spiral out in a search pattern, or snake down a specific corridor looking for possible targets like an Akula, Alpha, Victor III, Oscar (of which 12 were sold to the North Koreans, 9 functional, three for cannibalization purposes), and the many more models of Nuclear powered and diesel electric powered submarines the Soviets can no longer afford to operate. I prefer the old "Bubble Head" axiom, "He who dives the deepest, lives the longest.".
Researchers note: I worked for a navy R&D lab that discoverd the Soviet method of discarding used reactors in the Chuckchi Sea. Seventy percent of our budget was black book, including support of Seal Team 2 out of NAB Coronado. Prior to my transfer, the facility had the only functional Arctic Pool in the western hemisphere. Our laboratory was run by a little old man, probably one of the nicest, and smartest men I’ve ever met. I don’t think Adm. Rickover saw it that way, but accepted this mans’ inputs when the Nautilus was built. This old man was responsible for all physical testing of all submarines in the fleet due to required tests that would eventually be used in the Arctic Ocean, until the advent of the SSN 688 Class. Hence the SSN 751 San Juan Class, and her conversion to the "old style" of dive planes. The lab was responsible for all submarine operations, including NATO, above the Arctic Circle.
In my research project, I eluded to an article in "Proceedings", produced by the Naval Institute, which indicated the possibility that the Russian’s had an anti-aircraft weapon similar to the Sagger 12, which is a rail launched anti tank missile. The missile would have to be launched from the surface, and be wire guided. Warhead was probably HE, but not surprised if it were "blast fragmentation". Data about the Sagger, Snapper, and Swatter can be seen in Appendix 6, as well as a picture on page 207 of a BMP with one mounted on a rail above the 73mm gun which is mounted on the cupula of the Book: Tanks: Facts & Feats; Kenneth Macksey, 1980, Third Edition, Sterling Publishing Co., New York.
The drawbacks to a weapon of this type, if used, are: range, radar horizon, emcon, handling, and reloadability. Reloadability is something that a good surface to air system requires. If you look at the Spruance Class BPDMS system, which is comprised of the Sea Sparrow. It has to be manually loaded, as does RAM, and both systems have a certain amount of reloads. Only a few Spruance class destroyers were given RAM: David R. Ray, and the Merrill, are two to name a couple. Also, aboard ship, you don’t have an unlimited supply of ordinance, which means as a CO, you have to stand down from combat to reload, as was seen during the Persian Gulf War.
So as a good and serious back up, ships maintain a gun, or guns as you can evidence by viewing the Foreign Contingent in my research paper. Some of the German, and Italian ships bristle with guns, some in quad mounts. These are mostly dual purpose, and facilitate a good envelope of protection. One aspect that interested me in my naval career, was counter battery fire. I witnessed this on several occasions aboard ship in the Mediterranian Sea. During the U.S. occupation of Lebanon, one of President Reagans’ few blunders, unlike slick willie, who blunders every day with his pants around his ankles.
The PLO liked to hide on top of high rise apartment buildings. This was for obvious purposes, one was a high spot to observe while commanding fire missions, and the other was to maintain concealment. The U.S. finally had enough of being fired upon by 122mm Katusha rockets, and a variety of smaller recoiless rifles. As a matter of pretense, our ships would be in line 1000 yards off the coast of Beirut, and request firing sorties from the Marines. When the fire missions came in, we would respond with a quick volley of 5" alternating from mount to mount. This way, our level of fire could be sustained (at 20 rounds per minute). At times we had to perform counter battery fire from rocket attack, while undergoing high speed maneuvers in as you have said Mr. Rivero, littoral waters, which by the way is tough sledding as you so indicated when it comes to submarine operations (as a side bar).
Apartment buildings don’t stand up well to 5", especially while using blast fragmentation, PD, and cannister (you figure it out Mr. Rivero). Most of this ammunition was developed during the Korean and Vietnam wars. For an example, you can read "Vietnam, the Naval Story" By Frank Uhlig Jr.; 1986; Naval Institute Press; Annapolis, Maryland.
Mr. Uhlig goes into detail about a variety of missions the navy played in that ill fated war, where 50,000 Americans gave their lives, either willingly, or unwillingly. A war that was started by Liberals (Truman 1949) to facilitate socialist means attempted by the French, who got their butts severely kicked at Dien Bien Phu (May 7, 1954 - How’s your history Mr. Rivero? Do you know what happened then?). All Truman had to do was pay the French to leave their colonial estates at the end of WWII, and ask Uncle Ho how much, but that was too easy. Instead, our Democratic Congress decided to interfere because big business had money to make, and donations to hand out. One of those big businesses was Bell Helicopter - owned by Lady Bird Johnson. To make even more money, these wily politicos involved themselves for years in the decision making process of what went on during the war. Read MacNamara’s first autobiography (learn about the 100,000 man plan), then read about Dean Rusk, then read about Henry Cabot Lodge, and his ineffectualism while performing as American Ambassador to Vietnam. It’s for certain that had Nixon not made office, we would still be embroiled in some money making scheme to get liberals even richer. Look at the leadership style of Bush in relation to Clinton. Bush made one military tactical error: Falling into the hands of the UN. Whereas Bill Clinton has no will, and inable to make a ready decision, hence the delays and blame to cast aside the responsibility of his office.
Have you ever led people into possible situations where their lives might be forfeited? I have. During the last nine years of my career, the Navy stepped up a strong anti terrorist campaign. I participated in counter terrorist training tactics. Only on the local level, but because of my seniority I had to make decisions. No I was no SEAL, nor would I want to be after seeing first hand what they go through to get where the have to be. We had updates flowing in readily. Terrorist camps in Mexico, 200 miles away from NAVSTA 32nd ST.
Since the Clinton administration has come to light, the military budget as well as the CIA and the DIA have their budgets reduced to two percent of the national budget. No wonder our guys are walking around blind. Clinton has to hide his secrets behind big business like Progressive Insurance and Loral. Clinton’ buddy Bernie Schwartz, the largest contributor in the history of the Clinton machine. Acquired a satellite deal that would net Bernie a cold 27.4 Billion dollars from the Chinese, unwittingly set up by Ron Brown, who talked congress into the sale of 300 super computers, of which at least forty were Crays. Because of the loss of communications after Ron Brown’ decision to step down as Secretary of Commerce, the Chinese were in a SNAFU. They had to talk to somebody, the money was in their tight little hands, they were ready to make a deal. Ron Brown was their only confidant, the only person they could trust, so they discussed the Loral deal, which he probably had little or no knowledge of. Little did he know this would sign his death warrant.
Back to my point, which is the research paper. Why Progressive? Why Mohammed Samir Ferrat? Why Hank Clay? Have you ever put a jigsaw puzzle together? Ever been obsessed by an item that just scratches at the back of your brain? Pick up the pieces, but listen to this piece of advice first: Who is your worse enemy? Who in your life could do something so damaging to a magnitude that a military enemy could not? Somebody you know, somebody you trust, someone you have faith in. A mole. We don’t need terrorists Mr. Rivero, not at this moment in time. We have Bill Clinton, and he has sold the farm; his, and yours, and mine. He has made available the total of all the military secrets of this country, and TWA800 was just another door closing on the money trail. How much did Brown tell Ferrat? They were friends, confidants, Clinton knew this. Ferrat was an Algerian, he probably had contacts. I’m sure there are operations that uncle Bill has planned that have been compromised over and over again. Does Clinton care - Hell no! Just close the doors on the money trail, the DNC gets their 350 million smackaroos, and Bill gets what? Where? Who is holding Bills money? Is it out of the country? Or has it already been laundered? Hasn’t he told us he has no money? Don’t you think he might want to leave the country for a while? If the Chinese gave the DNC 350 Million, where is Bill’s, he set it up.
Look at the puzzle pieces again. Couldn’t Ferrat have been tipped off? Hence his last minute decision to not fly with Ron Brown. Where am I going with this? Read the Body count Alamo-girl has put together, probably one of the finest pieces of work (I disagree with Adm. Boorda’s death though, but that is another thing altogether) available to the American public. How many people were involved with plane wrecks or accidents that survived, only to be whacked immediately thereafter? A few, and I’ll let you find them.
Ferrat was flying on the same plane as Hank clay, the ATC’s had historically allowed aircraft to stray into the perimeter of W-105. Let me ask you a question, how hard is it to penetrate airport security at JFK? Only been through there twice, and I was a kid at the time. If it’s hard for someone who is not authorized, what about someone who is? Someone who has contacts with Union graft. Somebody who has knowledge of aircraft electronics. Somebody who has authority to move about the aprons without being questioned. If you are looking for terrorism, here it is, the worse kind. If you are from the east coast, tell me about the port authority, don’t argue about my position. Ask yourself these questions: Is there graft in the port authority? Is there graft within the unions who work in conjunction with the port authority? Are there contacts to organized crime within the said unions? You tell me on the net.
Two birds with one stone, why not put doubt into the minds of the American people. Wouldn’t that be more destructive than putting the U.S. Military on the spot. Just the secrecy alone would be damning. In Bill Clinton’s eye that would fulfill a lot in his mind, and put the military in a shroud of disbelief. The plan is so easy, just let somebody who is unwitting kill those who would be in the way. Hank Gray alive is a hindrance to a hostile takeover. With his funds in probate his estate is defenseless. Ferrat could have known something, may not have known anything at all, but why wait and find out. Weren’t there Chinese and Lippo group affiliates who left the country. Wasn’t Charlie Tri a long time affiliate to the Clinton’s? Wasn’t he arrested out of the country? Could he be a liability? Wouldn’t Ferrat be a liability if he knew some of the things involved in the Loral China deal?
It is quite evident that you gave this a cursory look, nor did you do the math. It is simple algebra with a little trig thrown in using a simple ballistics formula. Something an algebra (Math 105/1050) or triginometry (Math 106/1060). Would you have preferred it if I included gravitational, aerodynamic, and Coriolis constants? Is it that the facts are so straight forward that you can’t believe the hypothesis? Or is it that your own mind is so clouded with the desire that you are right that nothing else could possibly be correct? Ever looked in a mirror from an odd angle? What do you see? Look into this mirror, and tell me what you see::
Yahoo > Military > Weapons >type in Naval Guns
Yahoo > Military > Weapons >type in OTO Malera
Yahoo > Military > Weapons >type in OTO Breda
Yahoo > Military > Weapons >type in Bofors
Yahoo > Military > Weapons >type in Oerlikon
Yahoo > Military > Weapons >type in FMC
Yahoo > Military > Type in Belgian Navy
Yahoo > Military > Type in Canadian Navy
Yahoo > Military > Type in Dutch Navy
Yahoo > Military > Type in German Navy
Yahoo > Military > Type in Italian Navy
Yahoo > Military > Type in Royal Navy
Yahoo > Military > U.S. Navy >type in any ship name
Yahoo > Military > U.S. Navy >Type in ChInfo.navy.mil
Yahoo > Military > U.S. Navy >Type in Louisville Gun Factory
Yahoo > Military > ERGM
And the list goes on. You know as well as I do about the web, you can find anything anywhere. Is it true, or is it false. You do the research, and prove me wrong. Remember, in my research project I indicated that there was a difference between American Link 16 and European Link 11, and 14. I also indicated the use, by Americans, of Link 11 in the fleet, primarily with reserve units. If you look at the Foreign Contingent, you will see that the Germans’ and the Italians’ have the most fire power in the listing (of the Foreign Contingent). They both carry standard missiles, mostly SM1's, RAM, Sea Sparrow, 5", as well as 3" guns.
You will also note that the Spruance class, including the four 995 class hulls (originally built as the Shah of Iran Class) do not have SPY-1. As your friend duly indicated, CEC is dead in the water, although I am quite sure he knows far more than I do, since I never had access to Aegis. I did know FC’s who were slotted for the school after Mk. 26, Mk. 11, and Mk. 10 twin rails left the fleet.
As a note, the reason why the Mk. 26 twin rail left the fleet, since it was on the Ticondaroga when she was commissioned, was due to the Tomahawk missile. During tests, I believe aboard the Norton Sound, Tomahawk when loaded on the rails would fall off. The loading lugs that held the missile on the rails would rip off the missile body. As a result, the Navy went to a box launcher as seen on the USS Cushing, USS Merrill, and USS Long Beach. As a matter of fact, when the box launcher was released for fleet use, the Long Beach cruised off the coast of the Soviet Union, near Vladisvostok, and launched a TLAM. The missile flew a few patterns in the Sea of Ohtkosk, and then flew across the Gulf of Alaska into Canada where it was recovered about several hundred miles inland.
In the end the U.S. Navy went to a box launcher format similar to the Kirov Class cruiser. We would call it the Mk. 41. Each box can be removed, or the missiles can be accessed by a crane built into the system, or one provided for on the pier. All weapons, except for Sea Sparrow and RAM can be launched from this platform. The interior bearings are just rearranged to fit the weapon profile. The weapon is prepped, and readied while it is "hot on the rail". It’s an amazing system, one that will fill my memory for the rest of my life.
I was on the Kuwaiti flag ship. Some Kuwaiti sailor had the presence of mind to cut it free of its moorings using a fire axe. The ship was nothing to brag about, but during Desert Shield, I supported portions of SEAL Team two, who were working in conjunction with British SAS, and Saudi Special Forces. My guys had their equipment, the SEALs had their, SAS had their own pile, and the Saudi’s had their own pile, and the pile of ordinance was astounding.
When Desert Storm started, the sky was full of aircraft over the Persian Gulf. Then the combatant escorts came in and swept the anchorage. They were followed by the USS Wisconsin, the USS Caron, and the USS Reid. All three ships would unleash their deadly cargo of Tomahawks. The Wisconsin launched 32, the Caron launched at least 30, while the Reid launched 27. What a display, and it went on all night long. Launch after launch, ship after ship.
I’m not disagreeing with the potential for terrorism, I’m just defending my point, and the math does not lie. It is the universal language of truth. Plug in a few numbers see what you get. Like a Phoenix, at least Mach 3.8 (corrects my previous post @ Mach 5.8, sorry) - cruising speed at 40,000 feet, how many feet per second is that? 3666.7 fps. How far would it travel in 8 seconds, or 15 seconds? 29,333.6 feet or 4.8 NM; 55,000.5 feet, or 9.1NM. That’s a lot of real estate. Or maybe a Sparrow / AMRAAM, Mach 4 or 4455.8 fps, 8 seconds: 5.8 NM, 15seconds: 10.99996 NM. That’s even more real estate. Quite a line to be drawn by rocket motor exhaust. A lot of people would have seen it considering they were looking out to see with the sun low at their backs. Again I note the time element and the position of the sun from my research paper. The missile would have easily been seen.
That’s why I say a gun and two RAM from a non SPY-1 ship, possibly a member of the Foreign Contingent, even possibly a member of the U.S. Navy. Think about it, put the puzzle pieces together.
Be cool. TTFN.
No this is not bogus, just a hypothesis, and you gentlemen have made a mountain out of a mole hill. The point I was trying to make is that this aircraft could, I will reiterate, could have sustained considerable damage during a less than four second period by ordinance delivered by both gun and missile. A Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) will perform midcourse corrections for gravitational, wind, and Coriolis affect. From what I gathered, and what I attempted to indicate in the hypothesis was the time factor as seen from eyewitness accounts. An eyewitnes would not have seen a ballistic projectile, had it been shot from a gun, but they would have seen an ERGM round, and they would have seen any missile launched. As I indicated, quite correctly I might add, which none of you have been able to refute by any other means then just general claims, Sea Wolf was out of range. This would put any of the British boats out of range. This does not eliminate the use of another missile that has the same velocity as RAM, which is proven in the formula Distance/(V0 cos theta). Approach that with your generalities, and then we will have something to discuss. I respect your opinions, but they are, and I am stating my opinion based on military service and experience with the surface fleet and submarine fleet, quite incorrect. Use some tangible method to display your beliefs vice generalities. But I do agree, this was an awful event, which by all intents and purposes should never have happened, and as stated in the text of the research paper through Boeings tests, the government lied about the wing separation. Had to be damaged, since the wing is capable of withstanding 174% load, or 87% of aircraft full weight. 747-400, Dowdy. Find it in Barnes and Nobles. Put that in your funk and wagnels. TTFN.
Thanks for input Sword_Svalbardt. Which is worse, the shootdown, or the cover-up??
They are of equal bad things if that makes sense. You have a horrendous loss of life, and you have the government trying to get out of reparations that could lead to billions of dollars. My report was based on the proliferation of similar weaponry in NATO fleets, sic Germans and Italians. Since their Link capabilities are not similar to ours, there could very well have been a foul up, which could cause problems for EU relations with the U.S. TTFN
ATCs not warning flight out of area
Connections with Ferrat and Gray. Two birds with one stone.
This (to me at least) provides background for an accidental firing from a US Navy ship due to a non-target being made to look like a target. The Navy may be guilty in the cover-up but not in the shot itself. It seems to be the perfect clinton crime. Kill your enemies and make it look like your enemies did it.
I was hoping that someone else would point this out, but no one has, so here goes…
This is an interesting and informative thread, and most of what you say makes sense, except for one thing.
The transponder is an integral part of the Air Traffic Control System. It displays to the Controller the flight number(or tail number), altitude, and air speed. It appears next to the blip on the radar screen, and is tuned before the aircraft moves on the ground. If the transponder were not functioning, the ATC cannot track the aircraft and said aircraft would be effectively grounded until it works correctly. Even if the Pilot thinks it is working, but it does not, it gets tested when it is tuned. The call is something like " TWA 800, squawk 7714" at which time the pilot dials 7714 on the transponder and presses the "squawk" button. No transponder, no flight. Without a transponder, aircraft cannot enter class C airspace at all(I think it is 10 miles surrounding the airport). If it had failed after takeoff, the ATC would have notified the aircraft, and instructed it to return to the airport. There is no indication of this in the cockpit or ATC recordings.
If you remember, when Mr. Salinger came forward with his missile theory, the blip on the picture indicating TWA 800 had a transponder "tag".
Like I said, there are good points here, but the transponder ain't it.
Fair enough, but is there another way around this? Does the military IFF/UHF vary from the Civilian, as far as purposes of identification? What I mean, can the system be altered enough for the civilian systems to pick it up, but not the military? And if what your saying is true, not disagreeing with you, could an ECM ghost be painted over the target? Respectfully, Sword
Was the transponder tag on a video of the radar image, or was it on a still? If on a still could it have been made to look like it had a transponder tag? I'm fishing out of curiosity. With the weapons systems of today, those that are computer controlled arer highly discretionary, but there are manual over rides. For example, I know of an FC1 in our DESRON that tried to manually "jack" a round out of battery (remove from the breach) from a 3"/62 (76mm). In the process it fired three rounds that crashed through a Phalanx unit, which in turn landed on an H-60 Sea Hawk. This not only damaged the aircraft, but it injured a portion of the maintenance crew. The rounds would not explode at this juncture due to the fact they had not revolved along their axis of flight sufficiently. This means the round has to spin a certain amount of times before arming. How about a return on that question Mr. Quarterpane. Respectfully, Sword
"2.ATCs not warning flight out of area."
Okay, one more time.
TWA 800 WAS NOT IN THE WARNING ZONE.
This whole nonsense claiming that the ATC was "in on the plot" to kill someone on TWA 800 by not keeping TWA 800 out of the active warning areas is a fiction.
The above AVI file is an animation based on the radar data showing both ships and aircraft at the time of the shoot down. TWA 800 enters halfway down the left side at frame 189 and explodes at frame 214. Note that at no time does it enter W-105 shown to the lower right. The ATC had already moved the flight path northward in respnse to the activation of the warning zones. TWA 800 was right where it should have been.
Folks, with the cover-up of TWA 800 in total melt-down, it looks like the game is afoot to create as much confusion about what really did happen, in order to delay the formation of public concensus.
Certainly with the impending release of damning photos on Monday, it's in the governmnt's interests to pre-position some easily discredited "straw-man" theories for the media to use in denouncing all those who challenge the government's official story.
I cannot speak to the Military ATC systems. I am sure that they are far more capable of sorting out civilian planes from drones. (Nod to the Vincennes)
The image Pierre showed was a printed image, and I guess that it could have been played with, but I still think that if there was a problem with the transponder, ATC would know it and it would ground the aircraft.
It is possible to override automatic systems, paint an image over the 747, but would it not make more sense to fake a catastrophic failure? All this time gone by and still no clear answer "There must have been some kind of explosion". Officials shrugging their shoulders on TV is not very comforting....
The new transponder information is very interesting!!!
Now I can't help but wonder what a drone would look like to the targeting systems as compared to a 747 and whether that might have been part of what they were testing that day?! If so, it would go to the idea of it being an accident.
On the other hand, I'm wondering whether there would have been a way of changing the transponder (or detector systems) to malfunction on timer or send dual signals (747 and drone.) It seems that electronics-wise that would not be difficult.
Either way, accidental or intentional, it seems to me the gunfire method would still be valid.
If I remember correctly you propose that the navy shot it down accidently?
How far outside the zone was the flight and how did the navy shoot it down accidently there?
Radar doesn't know where the warning zones end. As I posted above, the most likely explanation for the accident is that the CEC battle management system was painting a target drone inside the warning zone, and by accident painted TWA 800 just at the moment the test missile started looking for what is was supposed to hit. The test missile locked onto the wrong radar return, left the warning zone, and hit TWA 800.
Was it the U.S. Navy though? Potentially, there were listings of at least five NATO country participants in the area. With non conducive Link systems working in conjunction with each other, that could breed possible errors, including misidentification. Your input. Respectfully, Sword
Question for the weekend: With the potential for tampering of a system, since I'm sure there are a lot of "I don't knows" in the gallery, I bring back the question about Boeings tests done in early development. An aircraft weighs 875,000 pounds. The wings individually accept approximately half that weight (437,500 pounds), and from my research I found that the wings under full load, with standard throttle can lift the aircraft 600 feet per minute (potentially since the flight crew would have that controlled)- the wing was stressed vertically 29 feet, and gave at 3.74 g or 174% of max load = 781,890 pounds per wing. Referring to the question: What velocity has to be maintained for a wing to sheer under the conditions the government indicated? And, since the aircraft was about 13,500 feet, could that velocity be attained by 7,700 feet? That velocity would have to be reached in approximately 5800 feet. f = m times a, algebraically moving the problem: f/m = a. In this case a or acceleration would be assisted by present velocity: 300 knots plus the affect of gravity per second squared. we would then go to the velocity equation of rate times time = distance. I'm at a library, and not at work with out the luxuries of my toys (formula books). I will work on this over the week end and display data then. Hopefully I can determine velocity at 7,700 feet of altitude, and use drag coefficients. I work in a metrology laboratory (calibration lab), so I can come up with some additional data on IFF/UHF, it's a military lab. We'll leave that at that. See you all on Monday morning. Hopefully I can come up with some more answers, or more questions. Be cool you all. Carnivore is out there. Fair winds and following seas to all. Respectfully, Sword
I was not aware of it [conference[ until it was mentioned here. We are not allowed to have radios. But I do get tapes of Rush Limbaugh every day from a friend. These guys don't even want us talking. I got the evil eye when I broached this subject in the lab from my lab manager. Little nazi, major power monger. Have learned a lot from you all, primarily the various aspects. I was bumbed initially from Mr. Quarterpanel about IFF/UHF, but I have friends in the lab who work on the equipment. We calibrate field standards and lab standards. TTFN Respectfully, Sword
to Michael R.: if you read your anon e-mail, as you requested, 1.5 years ago, you'd understand who did FL800. So don't get uppity with me. The feds have a real good (CYA) reason to want to make us think it was friendly fire.
It was accidental friendly fire. No other explanation fits all the known facts.
With the Olympics just a week away and terrorism on anyone's mind, it would be expected that the response to seeing a missile kill a 747 would be for the Navy assets in the area to head for the launch point, in order to prevent the firing of a second missile. No officer would bet his brass that terrorists only brought one missile with them. Given that the ATC were convinced at the time that the high speed non-transpondered target they had seen was a missile, it would have been prudent to re-route later air traffic out of the area. But they didn't.
None of these things happened. Radar shows all the Navy ships maintaining the same course into the Warning zones. There was at least one carrier in the group. No additional planes were launched to search for the launch platform. And while the wreckage of TWA 800 burned on the water below, passenger jets continued to cruise overhead.
None of the actions which would follow the launch of a missile from an unknown source occured that night.
From these facts, it is clear that there was no concern about a second missile. The government knew there would not be another shot taken at a passenger jet that night. The only way that the government could be certain there would not be a second missile is if they owned the first one. Nobody looked for the launch platform because the launch platform was already known.
That excludes terrorists. That excludes any third party as the source of the missile that killed TWA 800.
That leaves friendly fire as the only viable theory.
But if it wasn't US Navy, wouldn't the Navy immediately finger the culprit to get the monkey off their own backs? Or at least target the enemy?
That would depend on shooter. We're talking billions in reparations here, and the EU is in no condition to deal with heat from American Legal firms. Respectfully, Sword
1."TWA800 is directed not around, or through a corner, but through the very center of W-105."
Is this not incorrect? Maybe not significant either way, but.....
It is incorrect to claim that TWA was in any way inside the boundaries of W-105 at any time during the fatal flight.
The above AVI file is an animation based on the radar data showing both ships and aircraft at the time of the shoot down. TWA 800 enters halfway down the left side at frame 189 and explodes at frame 214.
Note that at no time does TWA 800 enter W-105 shown to the lower right. The ATC had already moved the flight path northward in respnse to the activation of the warning zones. TWA 800 was right where it should have been.
Again, in the above detail, TWA 800 was well outside the active W-105 warning zone.
According to the material we have, TWA800 did not go through W-105 but it may indeed be immaterial as you say.
What of the propellant residue?
The red residue is consistent with RAM which is mentioned both by my source and Michael. My source indicates two RAMs out in his second by second replay of what might have happened.
Of course it's impossible to miss the point that it allows for the possibility of a foreign, non-U.S. Navy, platform.
And a quiz for you gentlemen. What is allowable speed for any mast to be exposed: faired, or unfaired?
From my partner (BSSN 638 Stonewall Jackson)15 to 25 knots depending on surface conditions. Now do I get to know the truth?
The aspect of a gun is quite interesting, because the viewers eye, i.e. the spectator, is not aware of the actual level of damage. They did see a missile, it was probavly two, and the midcourse correction was possibly the second round correcting for angular deflection of the intended target. Too many things fell into place at the right time for it not to be TWA800.
Some additional information about the level of damage the wing acquired to separate from the aircraft. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong with the math or the application: When we talk about torque, we also talk about force. Torque is a measurement of oz/inches, inch/pounds, and foot/pounds to our American audience. Torque can be defined as weight * distance equals force. In the case of the 747 - 400, full fuel take off weight is 875,000 pounds. Per wing that should be approximately: 437,500 pounds. Since the aircraft was essentially fully fueled leaving JFK International, we can say the wing span is 213 feet. So, ((875,000/2) * 213) * 1.74 = 162,146,250 foot pounds is required to snap the wing. Which is a bunch of force. Normally under full fuel conditions in flight, and this is ball park, not being an aerospace engineer, but using F = m * a, where m = to the weight of the aircraft in pounds, and a = to the speed in feet per second. Each wing is subjected to 6,883,721.4 foot pounds, or a total of 13767442.6966 foot pounds of force as each of the four engines develops 56,000 pounds of static thrust. Now I will throw another factor into the plane crash, drag- in reality friction, which is an aerodynamic coefficient. In this case as I previously explained, and as the government attested to, as well as evidence from the crash site, the nose section, or approximately 20% of the aircraft ripped clear from the fuselage. The coefficient is explained thusly. The aircraft is approximately 25 feet in diameter at this point including all spaces within the aircrafts fuselage. This includes all cargo spaces, mechanical spaces, fuel, hydraulic, and lubrication fluid storage tanks, as well as various vaults and plenums designed for placement of trim tanks, mechanical hardware, etc. At 506.3 feet per second the force on this area is (1/120)*(2Pi25^2 )*506.3^2 or a net drag of 16568.6 pounds per square foot per section, or 33137.3 pounds per square foot total against the front of the aircraft. Remember, the nose section is bent over the planes back. Researchers note: (1/120) is the constant or k when working with fluidics (flow dynamics): f = k*a*v^2 or force is equal to the constant times the area times the velocity squared. This causes a severe, but temporary slow down and lifting of the nose. Concurring with the government, the airplane does not rise, but at some angles it might have appeared to due to optical illusion from spacial distortion not uncommon with small object from far away. Researchers note: small object refers specifically to the aircraft, and does not deny aspect or attitude of aircraft from the eyewitness standpoint, nor does it belittle, besmirch, or counteract their claims. The force developed is sufficient to rip the now dangling nose off the plane, and slow the fuselage down significantly where the horizontal speed is reduced, and the vertical speed is increased.
DEBATE ON TARGET ACQUISITION AND GUIDANCE
I think I missed some relevant points in my first read, particularly re RAM, about which I have a question: What is its guidance system? Radar track, heat seeking etc?
There’s a bunch of information on RAM in the body article and a lot on guidance. He notes that the RAM is guided.
But this comment from him really stands out to me – he notes that the eyewitnesses would have seen an ERGM round, which uses GPS guidance:
.....it is obvious none of you paid any attention to my point about ERGM. This taken out of R&D, and placed on ships for fleet testing in 1996.
This weapon will
B)stabalizing fins deploy (like APFSSD-Armor Piercing Fin Stabalized Sabot Discarding rounds used in tanks,
C) rocket motor burn,
D) canard deployment,
E) guidance by GPS to airborne or surface target.
Range 40 NM. Anything over 40 NM, and the ERGM round would have to glide to the target with a certain marked loss in velocity.
The above was even more curious in light of Michael's remark that the naval fleet was testing new technology at the time. Hmmmmm....
Another very curious thing for your information - from this websitehttp://twa800.com/radaranalysis.htm is this excerpt:
All three radars, Islip, JFK and HPN have some anomalies with respect to each other and with respect to the aircraft's speed when calculated from one radar return to the next. The three radars are all independent with JFK and ISP being slightly out of synch (between .04 and .53 seconds) and HPN being a full 2 seconds ahead. The timing and angular differences make it difficult to compare the three radars for positional accuracy because the aircraft was traveling at 633 ft. sec. However, since ISP and JFK timing are close, as little as .04 seconds, they can be compared to one another.
It should be noted here that this type of radar, because of beam width, has a built in margin of error of hundreds of feet for any given Sweep, however when averaged over several Sweeps, the accuracy increases. For example, we calculated the position and speed of Flight 800 for 10 radar sweeps prior to the loss of the transponder. The speed varied significantly from sweep to sweep, but over several sweeps the average speed was similar to Flight 800's known speed prior to the initiating event.
When you look at the graph linked from that page, it seems pretty obvious that whatever the military uses to acquire and track a target with GPS - has gotta be a whole lot more accurate than the radar!!! The margin for error on the three radars is enormous. Jeepers!
I did pick up what may be a good thought from this. Although I don't buy the disablement of the transponder on the ground, would it fit that the transponder was sabotaged on the ground to become disabled after take-off..... I'm thinking of an explosive device or acidic/caustic compound set to a pressure switch or altimeter to detonate/activate at say 4000 ft. This could bring Ferrat-Gray into the picture and still not contradict any of the physical evidence, right?
If the transponder started to malfunction, or if the ATC thought that there was a problem, even if the ATC did not voice his concern, a clue of transponder problems are the ATC repeatedly asking the aircraft to squawk.
Thank you so much for raising that possibility to be considered!!! I'm curious also if the transponder could have been augmented - or an additional device set in place - to send a drone signal for GPS tracking....
When you look at the graph linked from that page, it seems pretty obvious that whatever the military uses to acquire and track a target with GPS - has gotta be a whole lot more accurate than the radar!!! The margin for error on the three radars is enormous. Jeepers!
Unless I miss my guess, GPS is incufficiently accurate to (alone)coordinate in real time a moving (300+kts)target and a missile/RAM. Anyone know for sure?
I gathered up some GPS information for you! But first, please view this url to see how different the 3 radar trackings of TWA800 actually were:http://twa800.com/images/compositeradar.gif
A great resource on GPS is here:http://navtechgps.com/
Here are some excerpts to address the question of the state of the art, i.e. developmental systems that would have been in test at the time of TWA800.
Precision-Guided Munitions: Acquisition Plans for the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (Letter Report, 06/28/96, GAO/NSIAD-96-144).http://sun00781.dn.net/man/gao/nsiad96144.htm
Developmental systems -------
Range: over 60 nm
Guidance: GPS/INS plus IIR with man-in-loop
Warhead type: Blast/fragmentation
GPS/INS = global positioning system/inertial navigation system
IIR = imaging infrared
\b The Navy plans to upgrade and retrofit 700 of the 767 baseline SLAMs to the SLAM-ER configuration. In addition to developing JASSM, the Air Force and Navy are buying and/or modifying additional precision-guided munitions. For example, the Navy plans to modify 700 SLAMs to the SLAM-ER version, which is planned to have greater standoff range, lethality, and accuracy than SLAM. About 1,000 Harpoon missiles could also be upgraded to SLAM-ER missiles if they are needed.
\5 The SLAM-ER is an upgrade and retrofit to the baseline SLAM. It will maintain baseline SLAM capability while improving performance in the areas of launch and control, aircraft survivability, immunity to countermeasures and probability of kill against hardened targets. SLAM-ER is also expected to provide improved range, hard target penetration and user interfaces for both mission planning and aircraft integration.
FY 1995 Phase I Awards Abstracts - SBIR Program 95.1, 95.2, and 95.3 Awards http://www.onr.navy.mil/sci_tech/industrial/sbir_bbs/onrt95ab.htm
Accurate position, velocity, and attitude information is of key importance for a wide variety of moving devices and platforms. In this project, a Real-Time hardware/software (RTHS) structure is presented for designing advanced GPS/INS navigation systems, which are able to provide accurate position, velocity and attitude. The RTHS framework is applied to unify and optimize various integrated GPS system modeling, analysis, synthesis, and simulation techniques
And here is some state of the art information concerning the guns - specifically the ERGM my source mentioned:
WEAPONS EX-171 ERGM Extended-Range Guided Munition
Description: The Extended-Range Guided Munition (ERGM) is a 12-caliber rocket-assisted projectile carrying a 4-caliber submunition payload. The projectile is launched from a modified 5-inch/62-caliber Mk 45 gun mount and is guided to its target using both Global Positioning System (GPS) and inertial guidance. ERGM's range and precise GPS targeting capability will improve Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) and provide near-term gunfire support for amphibious operations, suppression and destruction of hostile anti-shipping weapons and air defense systems, and naval gunfire support for the joint land battle.
Program Status: Milestone I/II was approved in July 1996 to enter Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD). Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) of 500 rounds will begin in 1999.
Developer/Manufacturer: Raytheon Missile Systems Division, Bedford, Massachusetts; and Raytheon Systems, Lewisville, Texas.
More miscellaneous excerpts … on Aegis, targeting, GPS, CEC and ERGM:
Seapower Magazine http://188.8.131.52/seapower/integrated_combat_systems.htm EDWARD J. WALSH
Aegis Combat System
The SPY-1A and SPY-1B Aegis radars use two transmitters linked to four phased-array antennas, each of which emits an electronically controlled beam across a 90-degree field. On Ticonderoga-class (CG 47) Aegis cruisers, two antennas, installed in the forward deckhouse, face forward and starboard; two antennas installed in the after deck house face port and aft. The SPY-1D variant designed for the Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) Aegis destroyer uses only one transmitter; all four antennas on the Burkes are accommodated in the single deckhouse. SPY-1A, the first variant, was fielded to Baseline 1 (CGs 47 to 51) and 2 (CGs 52 to 58) ships. Baseline 3 (CGs 59 to 64) and 4 (CGs 65 to 73) cruisers received the SPY-1B, which incorporates improved antennas and electronic counter-countermeasures, and improves performance against low-flying antiship missiles (ASMs). Aegis system control for Baselines 1, 2, and 3 (in their original configuration) is provided by standard UYK-7 Navy shipboard computers. Baseline 4 ships are equipped with newer UYK-43 and UYK-44 computers.
The SPY-1 radar is integrated with the ship's weapons and other air, surface, and undersea sensors to provide rapid response to threats, especially antiship missiles that are launched against naval forces at sea or operating close to shore. When the SPY-1 detects a target, it continues to track it. The Aegis command-and-decision system evaluates the target parameters to identify it as hostile or nonhostile. In the case of a hostile indentification (ID), the ship's tactical action officer and/or commanding officer may choose to launch Standard SM-2 air-defense missiles from the Mk41 vertical launch system, which is installed on the forward and after decks of both the cruisers and destroyers. (CGs 47 to 51 are fitted with the Mk26 trainable launcher instead of the Mk41.) Using preset doctrine, the system also may automatically initiate missile launch.
The Aegis weapon system has been upgraded regularly, through a series of ordnance alterations (ORDALTS), to incorporate new weapons, sensors, and threat profiles. A critical Navy priority in recent years has been the upgrading of fleet defense against ASMs approaching at sea-skimming altitudes….
Beginning with DDG 81, Baseline 6 Phase 1 ships will be equipped with an enhanced land-attack capability, provided by the installation of an "upgunned" 62-caliber version of the Mk45 shipboard 5-inch deck gun. The gun will be capable of firing the extended-range guided munition (ERGM).
"Cooperative engagement," also referred to as sensor netting, will allow large numbers of CEC-equipped surface ships and aircraft to operate as a single "distributed" air-defense system capable of passing fire-control-quality radar target measurements in real time across the entire force. The CEC system features two primary components--a cooperative engagement processor (CEP) and a data-distribution system (DDS), which acts as the CEC communications relay--and a series of modifications to already-fielded combat systems. The CEP and DDS both are built by Raytheon Systems Company.
In CEC operations, radar measurement information on airborne targets from shipboard air-search radars is provided to the CEP, which reformats the data and sends it to the DDS. The DDS then encrypts and transmits the data to other ships participating in the CEC network (referred to as CUs). In a fraction of a second, the DDS receives all other CU data and forwards it to the CEP. The CEP combines all of the unprocessed sensor-measurement data into an identical air picture--consisting of continuous composite tracks of all targets. The same picture then is available for display and use by each individual platform's sensor and engagement systems. The DDS uses a narrow directional signal that is highly resistant to jamming and/or hostile intercept, and that allows simultaneous unit-to-unit communications between and among the various CUs, permitting the DDS output to be used as real-time fire control data. These data are passed to the ship's combat system as fire-control-quality data that the ship can use to engage targets without actually tracking them with its own radars.
The CEC takes full advantage of the diverse range of capabilities achievable by the participation of multiple ships equipped with multiple types of sensors throughout the operating area. Combining the varying sensor inputs available synergistically enhances the completeness of the common CEC data picture--and thereby enhances the ability of the CEC-equipped ship to track and destroy incoming ASMs. CEC provides a capability, referred to as "engage on remote," whereby a ship that does not originate the tracking data can launch missiles at targets within the weapons range identified in the CEC composite track picture. CEC achieved initial operational capability in late 1996 with the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Battle Group….
Naval Surface-Fire Support
The Navy has initiated a program to dramatically improve its naval surface-fire support (NSFS) capabilities to better support Marine and Army forces in littoral campaigns ashore. NSFS capabilities currently are limited to the Mk45 5-inch gun installed on the Navy's cruisers and destroyers. The Mk45 fires conventional projectiles to a maximum range of only 13 nautical miles and with less-than-acceptable accuracy. ….
The Navy's near-term core program focuses on upgrading the existing 5-inch 54-caliber Mk45 gun on its cruisers and destroyers to fire a new extended-range guided munition (ERGM) with nearly five times the range of current 5-inch projectiles. The ERGM, in engineering-and-manufacturing development at Raytheon Systems Company, will be a rocket-assisted projectile with an approximate range of 63 nautical miles. This increased range requires not only the use of an inflight rocket motor but also a more energetic gun to fire the projectile with a higher muzzle velocity.
Thanks to the use of an onboard global positioning system/inertial navigation system (GPS/INS), the all-weather ERGM will have an accuracy of 10 to 20 meters circular error probability compared with the 300- to 400-meter accuracy of current 5-inch projectiles at maximum range. The ERGM round will dispense 72 M80 submunitions to produce a circular destructive pattern on the ground with a selectable diameter of 20, 40, 60, 80, or 100 meters. The small M80 grenade combines a shaped-charge light-armor penetrator with antipersonnel blast-fragmentation effects.
The ERGM is scheduled to become operational in late 2001 on the newer Burkes, beginning with DDG 81. The Mk45 Mod 4 gun also could be backfitted on CGs 52 through 73, a total of 22 ships and 44 guns. In a complementary effort called the low-cost competent munition, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) is working with Draper Laboratory to make the GPS/INS guidance-and-control package for the 5-inch projectiles much smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the one in ERGM's current design. The low-cost competent munition guidance is a candidate for the planned ERGM upgrade.
Whew! I’ve been looking all over for the 54 caliber version of the ERGM which my source mentioned in the following comment (the 62 inch is under development)
Note. The US has come out with, and will be deploying the ERGM (Extended Range General Purpose Munitions) This is some very smart stuff, and will be coming with new bores 5"/62. Existing is 5"/54 or 22.5 foot long bore unbraked, new will be 25.8 foot long bore unbraked.
All I have found so far is the mount, but it definitely refers to the munition type at 40nm as he said elsewhere:http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/missiles/otobreda/index.html
127/54 LW LIGHTWEIGHT AUTOMATIC NAVAL MOUNT
127mm/54 calibre lightweight, compact, automatic gun mount intended to confront surface, coastal and aircraft targets. The gun can fire all standard 5-in ammunition, including guided rounds and a newly developed extended-range ammunition. Moreover, the two Gun Mounts (LW and compact) fire the E.R.G.M. USA ammunition up to a range of 40n miles.
The 40 ready-to-use rounds are loaded in two modular automatic feeding magazines. The gun mount includes a STEALTH cupola
OTO Breda and OTO Malera I believe both advertise sales of ERGM USA rounds as well as bores, both in 5"/54 and 5"/62. Can't remember website exactly, but did email site data to Alamo-girl in bibliography Respectfully, Sword
Does this mean GPS is used to achieve an approximation for firing direction and angle and inertial guidance takes over in proximity to target?
From my layperson’s view, it seems the GPS system is software controlled, predicting flight path and velocity based on real time data acquisition, which would imply course corrections even without the inertial guidance.
This might explain several things, including numerous eyewitness observations of change in direction during flight, but other than casual interest, what difference does it make whether it was ERGM or missile?
Again this is from my layperson’s understanding of what the source said, but the damage looks like blast fragmentation so it could go either way – except that some missiles apparently would look like "Cape Canaveral" and since the engine was not the point of impact, it wasn’t guided by heat sensing.
Did any of the foreign naval platforms cary ERGMs?
None that I see noted in this article
However, we can't get away from the fact that TWA800 never entered 105 except possibly barely, rather than "through the middle" as source claims.
Indeed, this is where all three theories look strange to me. The terrorist hypothesis says a boat (NorthEast?) of TWA800 shot it down and says the debris field points to that conclusion.
Michael’s has a valid target being acquired but then mistracked to the TWA800. And my source says the TWA800 was (automatically?) identified as a hostile, acquired and tracked.
Both not-a-terrorist theories indicate a serious error in target acquisition and tracking - whether or not intentional. And if they were indeed testing a CEC, either possibility seems quite reasonable no matter whether TWA800 was inside the 105 area or not.
To: Mr. Quarterpanel Thank you so much for sharing your expertise on the ATC and radar!!! Would you mind checking out this site and helping us to understand ithttp://twa800.com/radaranalysis.htm In particular, I’m personally curious about these paragraphs:
Secondary Radar works with an aircraft's Transponder. The transponder receives an inquiry from the secondary radar beacon and sends a response with its altitude and identification. The radar determines the distance by the same method as the Primary Radar by timing the return signal and determining the distance from the radar beacon. Flight 800's transponder responded to secondary radar inquiries until the loss of power. The plots discussed here are a combination of Primary and Secondary radars from Islip.
All three radars, Islip, JFK and HPN have some anomalies with respect to each other and with respect to the aircraft's speed when calculated from one radar return to the next. The three radars are all independent with JFK and ISP being slightly out of synch (between .04 and .53 seconds) and HPN being a full 2 seconds ahead. The timing and angular differences make it difficult to compare the three radars for positional accuracy because the aircraft was traveling at 633 ft. sec. However, since ISP and JFK timing are close, as little as .04 seconds, they can be compared to one another.
Could you help me understand the anomalies on the linked graph on that site? I’m wondering whether a missile could have targeted anything based on radar, considering the magnitude of error. And we know whatever hit did not target the heat source (engine.) This raises the GPS targeting that Sword suggested – and leaves me wondering whether a drone signal (possibly smuggled on board) would be totally invisible to radar...
I'm also curious about the 633 ft. sec in the article vs. the remark you just made to Sword.
The secondary radar is designed to paint the transpoder information (name, altitude, speed) on the radar screen for the hard return painted by the primary radar. The radars mentioned in the article that you reference are asyncronysis, they work independently. The type of radar used for Civilian aviation are that accurate. They do not have to be. pilots rely on several systems for navigation, VOR, NDB, and GPS. Radar just makes sure that the ATC knows where everybody is for safety. Discrepencies between radars from various angles to the flight are going to give varying positions. Remember that the further from the radar you are the harder it is to determine acurate position, and speed, depending on the angle. Highly oblique angles create high margins of error. This is why the transponder gives the information it does. The radar can give you a general idea as to the speed, but precise speed is best given to the radar by the transponder. Same goes with altitude.
I cannot account for the discrepencies between the radars mentioned form the link you gave, all I can profer is that maybe it is not significant.
The reason I raised the issue is the significance - or lack of significance - of the transponder.
Seems to me that whatever was being picked up off the transponder was much too error prone to initiate a target acquisition much less guide a missile or ERGM.
For that reason, I doubt anything concerning the transponder would have lead to the incident with TWA800 - it does however leave open the possibility that a military signal source for a test or drone might have been smuggled aboard, under the hypothesis that the naval contingent was set up to "accidentally" destroy the flight and passengers.
Not so!! the transponder "emits", that is, it transmits a signal that could be homed in on. The HARM (high speed anti radiation missile) works by riding the radar beam down to the radar antenna, destoying it. The HARM is, however, air-to-ground ordinance.
Hmmmm.... Thank you so much for that clarification!!! It appears that was part of my source's thinking on the RAM scenario as follows:
One one thousand - TWA800 is now 506.3 feet closer(21671.1 feet or 3.57 NM out) First RAM round out. RAM travels at two times the speed of sound. At sea level this is 2x760mph or 2565.5 fps. It is a radar beam rider (SM1). As it closes with the target it acquires the targets’ infra red signature with its Stinger head. Then it follows the beam to the target. If the weapon is unable to reach the target, the onboard CPU will plot CPA and the Stinger head will take over guidance. Its range is 12km or 7.5 NM.
I'm still amazed however that radar is that inaccurate...
In addition, the SPY-1 is a large body of wave guide anttenas to you radar freaks out there. Got a chance to see it close up when the lead ship collided with my ship off the coast of Al Masirah in early 1990's. Tico lost starboard forward SPY-1 and SLQ-32 mount plus SATCOM antenna, all starboard side. What did she hit? Life boat mount on my ships port side. We were "Med" moored 14 miles off the coast. Respectfully, Sword
My comments remain the same as the last thread on this topic.
1. TWA 800 was never in active warning zone W-105. here are no ATC who "ordered" it into the danger zone. This is a "sraw man" claim created to be easily knocked down by media propagandists supporting the official story.
2. Suggestions about exotic weapons such as EMP weapons or artillery are beig floated purely to obfuscate the issue and delay the formation of concensus, as well as manufacture the false imprssion that critics of the official story cannot make up their minds as to what they think did happen.
3. Same comment for posts claiming that TWA 800 was shot down on purpose by our own government.
4. Theories about terrorists, a hit on Netanyahu, Iranians, etc. are all variations of the claim that the missile seen by the eyewitnesses came from a third party. The "third party missile" theory is contradicted by the actions of the Navy and the ATC that night, which contradict the suggestion that the origin of the missile was unknown.
5. The NTSB has been proven in court to be lying about TWA 800, even to the point of rigging tests. If NTSB operatives are willng to rug test results and lie to the public, even in a courtroom, be assured they are doing so here at Free Republic.
I appreciate the input. Alamo-girl indicated there would be a lot of heat, but the idea of the paper was to reignite the investigation, as well as cast light on other issues involving the crash/shoot down, hence the "hypothesis" route. All inputs have been extensive, and in most cases from quite well informed individuals. Again I would like to thank Alamo-girl for her efforts as well as her inputs.
Some points I would like to bring out, hopefully for clarification as well as additional input from the gallery. The rocket motor burn of the ERGM round would be similar to the old RAP round or Rocket Assisted Projectiles used during Vietnam. These were designed for improved range, but accuracy was lacking until a tracking head similar to the Pave Way/Pave Penny system as seen on the A-10's. Unlike the A-10 system, the RAP round initially would just fall towards the target. Initial round was smoke (White Phosphorus), which would allow for corrections by a forward observer.
Developments later on allowed for a laser guidance package that would survive the initial gun blast, so a forward observer could lase the target. Laser "splatter" reflected from the target would allow for mid course corrections via fin stabalization. Historically, this round the, laser version, has only been available in 127mm.
There is a difference from an SM1 and an SM2. The SM1 is a beam rider. The target has to be constantly illuminated by the launching unit. Where as an SM2 can be fired and "forgotten" once launched. FLIR on board ships, as far as US Navy is concerned is a new item.
Most of your FLIR testing (for naval units-not including air units because of the LANTRIN pod) was aboard submarines, with the latest unit being quite acceptable. Other than that I can't go into detail. Due to the classification of the project. The Submarine fleet has totally moved into more C^3 (C cubed or Command, Control, and Communication). New technology for littoral warfare has been derived, as well as continued presence in pelagic operations.
I would also like to restate my point about the Navy, and that is there are quite a few profesionals left in the service. In my opinion, this was not done on purpose by our forces, or NATO forces. But, I am sure someone was able to see what had happened, and are either afraid to come forward, has been warned about coming forward, or no longer exists on this plane. In addition, look at the list of those in the military who have died in the line of duty under questionable circumstances. Most of you are ex-military, or have worked in conjunction with the military. We all know what questionable is. The evidence that the government has placed before us is quite questionable. Those witnesses who have not spoken, need to come forward.
My research paper was nothing then that. I have only seen data on the internet as far as the crash. I have relied on personal knowledge, experience, as well as written materials in my possession or available through friends, and the library. This is no "DITHF" or whatever you call it. It is strictly OPINION on my part. I am here just the same as you, to learn the truth. If anything I have said is in error, then by all means correct it. That is fair enough by anyones means.
There is a difference in Civilian IFF/UHF in compared to the Military. From constituents input (this is an Air Force Lab) Military cannot switch back and forth, where as Civilians can. As to my claim, well who knows. Some day this might all come to light, maybe not. But I will do my best to keep up to speed on the facts. Respectfully, Sword
I agree with you that someone had to know what really happened, and if they are still alive - we do hope they come forward. IMHO something of this magnitude unresolved - will continue to fester and hurt the survivors, those involved and the people who care.
I think that is the source’s point. Having someone on the ground disable the IFF/UHF transponder on the airplane knowing the battle group is out there is a great way to setup an accident with no evidence trail.
The problem with this is that ATC shows transponder to be working well into the flight. Also, this theory hinges on counting upon TWA 800 to be directed into 105, which source claims happened, but did not.
Source's theory that TWA 800 was hit by RAM or ERGM rather than missile from a surface platform and Michael's suggested possibility of a sub-surface platform both look like reasonable possibilities. What don't look reasonable are shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles, intentional sabotage on the ground with the hope of causing an accidental Naval destruction of 800, and center tank explosion.
Source may well be onto something good if he's for real. I hope he is but I remain skeptical.
I still suspect that the research project was a team effort by multiple individuals. If one individual wrote/compiled this, he is an extremely intelligent, well-educated and knowledgeable person. Large sections are extremely well-written with no grammatical/syntax/spelling/useage errors, yet in other large blocks we find multiple errors of the kind spell-check and grammar-check don't pick up: "elude" in place of "allude", "Russian's" where "Russians" would have been correct, etc.
If constructed by a "semi-official Navy team," it is to be expected that the team would masquerade as a single individual to increase the likelihood in the mind of the reader that it is a patriotic whistleblower.
Of course you should respect the desire of a poster to be anonymous, but that doesn't answer the question of why it would be necessary if the source is so willing to make himself identifiable to U.S. intelligence through the inclusion of so much auto-biographical data.
Finally, I must repeat that I don't think for a second that you are doing anything but searching for the truth, and a damn good job of it at that.
The point about the transponder is well made. However, I found there were three radar monitors reading the flight’s transponder transmissions – and the differences between their readings seems huge to me! (The urls are in the above debate section.)
We got off on a guidance tangent over the weekend and best I can tell the projectiles could have been "riding the beam" back to the transponder, or it could have been a software/hardware malfunction in GPS acquisition/tracking, or GPS tracking a separate drone signal smuggled onto the flight, or a hardware/software error in a CEC test. There may be others, that’s just off the top of my head…
I certainly agree with you that the NTSB version is not acceptable and that Michael’s "dog didn’t bark" logic pretty much rules out a terrorist or third-party attack.
It is my understanding that a RAM is a "missile." My source hypothesized there were two RAM’s and possibly an ERGM. The ERGM is also GPS "smart" and would cause a lot of destruction without leaving high explosive residue (which is not present in the debris) – as I understand it.
As I have mentioned before, I ran a spell check and made changes to some – but not all – of the information. But even if the source were fronting for a team, I would view that as an opportunity to get more details and expertise into the mix.
You guys are so silly. Aircraft fly all the time without IFF. It is no big deal close to the US. Do you really believe that anyone would fire a missile that would end up in Boston or Long Island? You have too much dislike for the present administration. You are like little kids who cannot seperate reality from fantasy, the probable from the impossible. And in case your wondering where I stand on this we had two family friends on that plane. There was also a civilian Aegis tech on his way to Naples to work on a ship. Maybe they,(whoever they are)had him killed. I also talked to some FCs on the Normandy about this. No missile and no CEC. But what do I know. Just because two friends have been to the CEC training class in St.Petersburg FLA. and shared their knowledge heck they probably are lying. And if I hear one more poster talk about submarines operating submerged in the area I will just have to keep laughing even more. This whole Navy deal is a big disinformation operation. A bunch of useful idiots always make these operations easier. You guys remind me of the anti war leftys who always find the US military guilty of something. The wilder the theory the more you like it.
Michael says ERGM is not used for anti-air and (although this is subjective) not capable of the severe changes of direction and attack angle reported by numerous eyewitnesses.
"...and best I can tell the projectiles could have been "riding the beam" back to the transponder..."
This I think you can rule out, unless it is the result of one of your software malfunction possibilities. If the transponder were working it would have identified the aircraft and it wouldn't have been intentionally targeted. IMVHO, either transponder wasn't working, CEC software/communications failed, or the aircraft was painted accidentally along with a drone.
"But even if the source were fronting for a team, I would view that as an opportunity to get more details and expertise into the mix."
My point is that if he's fronting for a "semi-official Navy team" the intent is not to lead you toward the truth.
Sword, I hope you are what you claim to be, and if so I will gladly (and somewhat embarrassedly) apologize. I'm sure you understand the necessity of healthy skepticism on this subject. Do you care to comment on how the fact that TWA800 didn't enter 105 affects your theories?
"RAM only has to track via (V sub 0 * Cos theta), the round would correct as required until it acquired athermal lock on the target..."
Thermal lock? Sorry if you've answered this a dozen times already, but RAM guides on what? Flir, profile, heat/engines?
Shouldn't be heat/engines, as aircraft damage rules this out, right?
Aircraft fly all the time without IFF.
Do aircraft fly "all the time" along the edge of hot Military Warning Zones without IFF?
Regarding your laughing, the Navy has acknowledged after changing story 3 times that there were 4 submarines in the vicinity. I don't blame you for laughing at what the Navy says, because if it suits their purpose to distort the truth they will do so without hesitation.
I'm not sure you really meant to direct this post to me, but if you have paid attention, I am one who has made it pretty clear that I think an intentional targeting of flight 800 is very unlikely.
I think you have your mind made up and aren't interested in facts, but there are plenty available for you to draw your own conclusion based on something better than "A couple of knowledgeable guys told me so."
Ad hominum attacks are unnecessary and counter-productive.
Michael says ERGM is not used for anti-air and (although this is subjective) not capable of the severe changes of direction and attack angle reported by numerous eyewitnesses.
My source says ERGM is used for both air and surface and uses GPS guidance. Also he said the exhaustive damage to the TWA800 looked like two RAM missiles plus the 54 caliber gun, perhaps with the smart ERGM round. The second RAM would be course-correcting to hit parts knocked off by the first one. The ERGM guidance would be via GPS.
"...and best I can tell the projectiles could have been "riding the beam" back to the transponder..." This I think you can rule out, unless it is the result of one of your software malfunction possibilities. If the transponder were working it would have identified the aircraft and it wouldn't have been intentionally targeted. IMVHO, either transponder wasn't working, CEC software/communications failed, or the aircraft was painted accidentally along with a drone.
The things you said could be true. Also, I’m wondering if a drone signal transmittal could have been smuggled onto the plane – something the navy would have picked up as an automatic hostile, perhaps. Finally, that transponder sure was sending out strange information. All three radar monitors are different. One is way off the mark. So I’m wondering if it was working properly, too.
RAM is an SM1. This means it has a radar director near or on the launching platform, in this case the RAM system radar is on a mast near the forward section of the ship, has to be on continuously. This is evident with most of the Standard missiles in use today.
When the target is within range of the Stinger seeker head built into RAM, then it can tell the radar system via RAM's CPU that it has acquired the target via thermal lock of the Stinger seeker head.
Then the radar can be directed to another target. Does that answer your question? Now to correct, with additional data, Mr. Rivero's statement that a submarine launched SM2 like the RIM 67 Block 2 C variant was used is possible, because the weapon can be launched then interrogated and revectored. But in this case, the amount of witnesses to a missile launch as I just described would have been from all of Manhattan, and Long Island. It's a huge bird.
In addition, RAM's CPU has the ability to plot CPA (Closest Point of Approach). Does that help?
Might answer my question if I knew more, but I'm still unclear. Does "thermal lock of the Stinger seeker head" mean that it would be expected to hit the greatest heat source (engines)?
Also, still curious whether new information regarding the fact that 800 didn't enter WZ105 affects your theory of sabotage on the ground.
Hard to say, only a guess on my part. As before, just empiracal(sp). My question that has just arisen in my mind, and this is to all those freepers out there with military experience, how many times have you worked with equipment that kept going "down"? Or becomes nonfunctional for what ever reason? Expounding on this, the shooter has a IFF/UHF failure, which is hard to believe considering the redundancies built in to various systems? Just a thought. Respectively Sword
As far as an engine hit, if you are familiar with working on a FLIR or LANTRIN unit, you know that you have the capacity to see the target not just by the engine heat alone. The target, by choice can either be black or white, and the surrounding cooler objects can be shades of gray cooler than the target. In similarity to the RAM missile, and ADCAP 48 has the capacity to see the target using submarine passive sonar. Once the weapon gets a lock, it can become an independant entity to itself.
Back to RAM: I as the shooter get a radar lock on the target, which means to say I have acquired the target on radar. When the target is in range, or when it will be within the projected envelope of the missiles range, I can fire the missile. RAM, as an SM1, will follow the incident beam to the target (Incident beam being the radar bundle that is emitted from the radar director adjascent to the launcher). When RAM is within the range of the Stinger seeker head, the seeker head will take precedence over the CPU, which means like the ADCAP 48 it will drop the link in both cases, the ADCAP 48 will drop its' wire of its' own accord (if the weapon is allowed - I can indicate in various settings that I will maintain command control of that weapon). The RAM will drop the radar link and go on thermal indications from the target.
An engine hit would be the ideal, in almost anyones book, but if that is not possible, the CPU will determine the closest point of approach in relation to the largest radar cross section previously available from radar track. If a hit can be registered, suggesting impact - and this is where it gets iffy, then the weapon would detonate at CPA allowing target to fly into path of blast fragmentation warhead after "deployment". Deployment being detonation of warhead prior to impact.
Now you may ask yourself, self, why didn't the weapon hit the target? It definately was in range to the target as far as solid fuel state was concerned. During WWII, it was found that it took only six critical hits to knock down an aircraft. Not six hits, but gun camera footage can be seen where serious hits did the damage to various air targets. Why is that substantial? What do we know about airplanes now that wasn't known then? Aircraft are, in most cases, more fragile than they used to be.
With the advent of the turbine engine more equipment is required to maintain them in equilibrium. Meaning lube oil pumps, hydraulic sumps, etc. What was it that was said in the movie Armageddon? "...a million moving parts assembled by the lowest bidder...". It would in my opinion, and please don't treat this as gospel, that numerous fragments in critical areas of that aircraft did substantial structural and mechanical damage. Sufficiently to tear the left wing off when air speed hit a significantly high rate, about 1200 fps. In my opinion, the government lied about the fuel tank issue because of its proximity to the main structural component. Sorry to be wordy, just worked out that way. Respectfully, Sword
Also, on the W-105 area, the source in the article was creating a hypothetical scenario and then asks, if so – here’s the excerpt:
Combatants would be traveling at rates from very slow (1-5 knots while attempting to prosecute submarine targets) to racing at (18-30+ knots attempting to maintain PIM speed similar to a bounding over watch). If the Beaufort scale were low enough, freeway speeds could be evidenced by some of the American destroyers and cruisers. TWA800 is directed not around, or through a corner, but through the very center of W-105. This standard operations out of JFK international, more sloppiness from a "stressed out" union. Her progress was probably witnessed by Operation Specialists and Electronic Warfare specialists in CIC of any of the JOTDS (Joint Officers Tactical Data System linked to NTDS) capable ships (all American).
If so where was the IFF/UHF squawk? This is a code that presents itself onto the radar screen when the target is painted by radar. Without a squawk, she is immediately labeled a threat - HOSTILE. Her approach and flight path are handed off to a combatant in control of that sector with the label hostile. The combatant then emits from its already warmed up radars, and paints the target. No IFF/UHF squawk verification.
I think it has been established that TWA800 flew North of the W-105 area and that the transponders were sending signals, so these presumptions are false based on our current understanding.
However, we’ve noted large discrepancies in three different radar monitors of the TWA800 flight path which are not yet explained. We also have not yet discovered what difference there may be with military radar tracking. We also have not explored whether or not a test decoy would have a different signal, and whether such a device smuggled aboard the TWA800 flight might have identified it wrongfully to military radar.
THE FOLLOWING IS MY LAYMAN'S UNDERSTANDING. ANYONE FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ANY ERRORS/MISUNDERSTANDINGS
Has to do with radar wave length, as I understand it. ATC radar has to sweep huge areas of the sky, therefore uses a wave length which is great for range, but not very discriminating (accurate) -- but plenty accurate for the distances ATC needs to maintain between aircraft.
Weapons radar uses a wave-length which has short range but extreme accuracy. When "riding a beam" a missile simply follows the return back to whatever is reflecting that beam back to the radar emitting device, so "accuracy" in this case is 100%. I don't know how accurate it is possible to be sitting aboard a surface ship and reading a screen to place the illuminated object precisely, but it seems likely that because wave-length used has been chosen for accuracy rather than distance, it's pretty nearly spot-on.
"We also have not explored whether or not a test decoy would have a different signal..."
Drone probably wouldn't have IFF at all; failure to return an identifying designation would cause it to automatically be labeled as "hostile."
"... and whether such a device smuggled aboard the TWA800 flight might have identified it wrongfully to military radar."
A thought, but the absense of IFF return is enough to cause "hostile" designation. Also, and more importantly IMHO, is that TWA800 flight plan did not call for it to enter WZ105 and it did not. Therefore, sabotage to cause an "accident" during the exercise would have been pretty iffy -- in fact a REAL freak if a set-up.
Now I have another question: since the information that has been coming out about the ships in the area keeps changing and getting more incriminating – how do we know the area they show as W-105 is accurate?
Zones are marked on commercially available charts (I'm pretty sure.) I believe David Hendrix of the Riverside Press Enterprise newspaper (who was the guy who initially started the ball of string unravelling by catching the Navy lying VERY early about the existence of the exercise in 105) established its exact location early on. I don't think there's any doubt about that, but it's the kind of question which could be overlooked and you're thinking in the right directions, IMHO.
Now I have another question: since the information that has been coming out about the ships in the area keeps changing and getting more incriminating – how do we know the area they show as W-105 is accurate?
The warning areas are marked on the maps used by pilots and mariners and never change, so that when the announcement is made that the warning zones are are active, pilots and mariners can look on their charts and see where to stay out of.
In response to your #58 about W-105: Consider a foreign combatant C.O./navigational detail. Would they be totally briefed on the "boundries" of the zone? In the heat of confusion during serious ECM/ Electronic Warfare, as it is called, would they be able to discern ata moments notice when they perceived a threat?
Remember, they only have Link 14, in relation to Link 16 of the Americans. The high propagation of white noise would cause some serious problems. Now consider the scenario listed by Mr. Sanders in his book. Using JFK to simulate an airfield similar to Bandar-abbas, and the amount of traffic flow near the "zone". Would W-105 boundries be apparent or perceived by visiting naval units representing foreign NATO contingent. As per my belief, the naval units were probably attacked by a serious number of drones to not only do various new software tests, but to also test envelope threat protection, of which guns and RAM would be key in a close in engagement using direct fire. Respectfully, Sword.
"In response to your #58 about W-105: Consider a foreign combatant C.O./navigational detail. Would they be totally briefed on the "boundries" of the zone?"
The boundaries of all warning zones of all nations are marked on the maps used by all the pilots and all the mariners everywhere in the world.
A warning zone is the international equivilent of a restricted airspace. By international agreement, everyone has the exact boundaries on their charts.
The pilot of the ANG C-130, a man named Stratemeier, I believe, was interviewed on camera by one of the networks shortly after the crash and stated that he saw a missile take out TWA 800. He apparently was later commanded to say no more about it. I saw this interview myself on TV the night of the crash, but I don't record things, unfortunately.
The proof of a government coverup is contained on Michael Rivero's site for anyone to see with their own eyes, in the form of three photogaphs of TWA 800, a 747-100, an early model. One is the intact plane taking off, which shows that the upper deck has three small round windows. Second is the starboard side of the plane as reconstructed at Calverton, which shows about ten larger square upper deck windows, apparently from a later model 747. Third is the port side of the reconstruction which shows four small round windows, an extra one having been installed between the original three windows. It is my understanding that 747-100s are bilaterally symmetrical for windows. This appears to be a 747-100 military modification, and is certainly not from the original plane. Thus the government has put together a reconstruction at Calverton with elements of at least three salvaged aircaft. It is a flat out attempt to deceive the public on the part of the FBI and NTSB.
Finally, Rivero is absolutely correct that with reports of a missile shooting down an airliner pouring in, there should have been a gigantic scramble of military assets to find and capture the source of the missile(s), even if the reports were false. The only possible explanation for the lack or reaction by our military is that they already knew where the missile(s) came from because they had launched it.
Along with the hundreds of witnesses of a rocket ascending to strike TWA 800, it is case closed.
To your #66: Hence the cover up. There is no doubt in my mind about the fact a missile was one of the weapons used in destroying the aircraft. In fact in the book written by Sanders' on page 16 he says, an I quote, "'Aegis arrogance,' they called it, a pride supported by the stubbing Tomohawk cruise missile tubes and the surgically accurate antiaircraft, and antiship weaponry that bristled from the cruiser's deck."
With Aegis you utilize envelope protection. This is a ship that WILL escort a carrier. It will attempt to destroy all leakers that get through the Tomcats and the Phoenix missiles they carry. This bad boy will control all assets, with the help of the E2C Hawk Eye, or E3 AWACS. Why? Because those aircraft can track in excess of 250 targets and remove all ground clutter and sea return. They are also very survivable in an EW environment.
Which leads me to believe that more than one drone was launched at the same time. Which would also indicate they were supported by envelope protection, and somebody could not see sufficiently what was going on, and pegged a target they believed to be a drone. Since American crews aren't talking, and they would - sooner or later, like they did aboard the USS Iowa - I believe a member of the foreign contingent downed that airplane, and they will not talk to the press. It was a mistake, very unfortunately, caused by the fact the Americans use Link 16, while the EU uses Link 14. A cover up ensued to drop the link to Clinton, get out of paying reparations to the company, and families of the victims, and spare the EU of any embarrassment. Respectfully, Sword
I also agree that the "dog didn't bark" is a very strong argument against the "terrorist" theory and makes it appear to be a US or NATO hit.
The major discussion on these threads are the mechanics of it --- which might give a clue as to who, how and why the cover-up.
Intentional v accidental is one line of questioning.
Submarine v surface vessel is another line of questioning.
US naval contingent v foreign naval contingent is another line of questioning.
If you have any insight on these questions, we'd like to hear it!!! Thank you so much!
Hear are my opinions/conclusions on the questions you raise.
INTENTIONAL VS ACCIDENTAL: If one assumes that a defense department asset, ours or NATO, launched the missile(s), there is no question of it being an intentional strike on the airliner. Since I think that the "dog didn't bark", it had to be accidental. The new radar/information system being tested didn't work as intended. It didn't sort out civilian from "hostile" (the drone) targets as it was supposed to.
FOREIGN VS U.S.: Only those closest to the incident know, and the information will be classified for years.
SURFACE VS SUBMARINE: Not a single witness that saw the early part of the missile'(s) flight talks about seeing a surface ship or even a small boat launch it or directly under the point where they first saw the missile. This points very strongly toward a submarine launch. Contrary to previous posts, there has been an effort to instal vertical launch tubes on subs in recent years. Furthermore, there has alway been the possibility of launching an antiaircraft missile via the torpedo tubes. Both the U.S. and Russia have recognized the desirablility of having an antiaricraft missile capability so a sub could take out an aircraft tracking/attacking it.
I'm sure the thought has occurred to many but it may not have been posted: The official explanation centering on an electrical short / CWT explosion - a "self immolation" - is peculiarly similar to the Foster "suicide" and others which have marked the past eight years. As a private pilot I commend the comprehensive work which you and others on this forum have done regarding this case.
This is feeling very logical to me. Like you, I would expect U.S. military grunts to talk about it if they felt any guilt at all. And if a foreign unit was implicated, the political side of government would be in control of the situation from the get-go.
To continue with your scenario .... keeping Michael's the "dog didn't bark" in mind --- as soon as it happened, the highest powers are informed of the error. They say to keep a lid on it, we have terrorists around because of the Olympics and we can't let them know where the blind spots are. They agree. Government publicly expresses deep sorrow and begins a sham investigation. Meanwhile, the administration banks the foreign relations iou's.
Perhaps this is why usually docile NATO countries risked violating their own charter, angering the U.N. not to mention global instability with Russia and China - to later participate in the bombing of Kosovo over the deaths of 2,000 ethnic Albanians. After all, 2,000 dead is terrible - but it clearly was one of the smallest human rights death tolls in the world at that time - compare to Sudan, Tibet, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Rwanda, etc.
I have seen websites where Naval Officers have blown the whistle on super-secret CIA black ops - it's out there on the net for anyone who can type (try "mind control" and "SEAL" on dogpile.com).
I find it difficult to believe that if it had been friendly fire, no Naval personnel who really knew, or even had heard a rumor, would not have posted it on rumormill news or the other conspiracy theory sites.
"It is case closed." Agreed. MR has laid the case out along with Mr. Sanders red residue work (which cost this gentleman plenty).
In any sane time - Americans and Congress would be calling for the heads of the FBI, NTSB, and the Executive Branch to resign because of this massive coverup.
But we do not live in sane times.
Satellites would have seen the whole picture millisecond after millisecond. They would be able to track the heat from a projectile rocketing through the atmosphere. If Mr. Rivero's/Mr. Sanders' hypothesis are true, than they can answer this question: What terrorist groups were in operation during that time frame? Who were they? Who did they represent? Would they have the capability (funds) to acquire said weapons systems? This requires a specific set of answers Mr. Rivero, not a general response. Does your source, not including Sanders' book, have contacts within the NSA who will release that data? And what were their goals, since New york is in all reality, quite a distance from Atlanta? Remember, there was a bomb set off in the Olympic venue area. There has yet to be released any data on who set it off, and what the motive was. Respectfully, Sword
In reply to your #88: The battle field would have been surveilled by satellites prior, during, and after. Any "projectile" be it missile or gun launched could have been seen during all phases. The satellites are the Link in Link 16. The take all the data during real time and place it on a mat.
Various command sensors will see some of the same things, others will not. With the use of JOTDS (Joint Officers Tactical Data System) in which that is the Link, I can be in the Persian Gulf, and see any where in the world there is a satellite Link. If I have the command and control overrides - the authority - I can control ordinance delivery systems - that are automated - at will. I can also get down links for immediate satellite imagery of a proposed target, or analysis of a weapon enroute to its target. Does that help? Respectfully, Sword.
The problem is time, my windows of opportunity are very narrow. Researchers note: Odds are the Air Force was using C-130 Hercules to provide ECM of area to simulate wartime conditions. That would mean that those in the area may not have had, if Link 16 was not available to them, IFF/UHF returns - that is honestly just a guess, but it would depend on how much energy was required to cut through the white noise. Respectfully, Sword
Your #95 clarifies re link 16, but what I don't understand is why you are asking Michael Rivero about terrorists. What terorists were active may be interesting but can only lead to further speculation about who may have been involved. Why bother if he sees the evidence making no sense of terorist attack anyway?
Sorry, I was being rhetorical. If what was hypothesized in the early days about a terrorist stick operating in the area, and there are, were true, then in most cases the NSA, CIA, DIA, FBI would know who they are. For example, who do you think , or where do you think the IRA would go to for money? Family, friends, and supporters in the U.S.. Would it be wise for someone like that to acquire funding then have the door slammed on their face? I think not.
My point in all of this, and there are flaws, holes, or how ever you want to look at it, is that the Americans' most likely know who is working in their borders. Like Los Alamos, would that have been a terrorist operation, no. Why have one when you have FEMA, with its number two man, Buddy Young right their. During a national emergency he has the authority to do everything short of declaring martial law. I know this is a side bar but it helps to explain my point about the currant administrations attempts to castrate, or being more polite, emasculate, the military and intelligence gathering organs of the United States, just to facilitate acquisition of more money. I believe Rush Limbaugh put the hammer on the nail when he indicated several weeks ago that when you start taking money away from the liberals, you assault their power base. Money is their empowerment. Respectfully, Sword
I have some additional information that I excluded fromthe research project, and I wanted to get Alamo-Girl's input on it before I posted it. It could change the entire aspect of things as we see them. Respectfully, Sword
Okay, here we go. To open this up I'm going to apply some more throttle. Some points in the form of questions. I have read Mr. Sander's book, after I posted my hypothesis. He has some very good information. There are points where I can disagree, and I want to bring them up, so if you are going to "flame" me please be direct and succinct. I will take criticism, but mind you this is for the opening of your mind.
2) Why would the Navy be testing like this at all considering that a considerably affective CEC was evident less GPS during Operations: Desert Shield, Desert Storm, and Southern Watch (I participated in all three)? Researchers note: This was mandated due to inconsistancies between various force elements (Air Force, Army, Marines, and Navy) during Grenada and Panama.
3) Why would the Navy/Army/Nato utilize different Link systems during heavy periods of jamming as indicated by Mr. Sanders (and I do not doubt him) considering the EW invironment?
4) Why would the Navy launch a weapon with the significant range as a RIM 67 Block II, III, or IV variants? Researchers note: This weapon has SIGNIFICANT range with one hell of a processor on board, even unarmed without a warhead the devastation from impact on a building within a population center, and explosion of the propellant would make Oklahoma City look like a little kids sand box. Also remember, this weapon has a high explosive warhead designed to displace air/atmosphere, or cause sufficient turbulance incoming ordinance would be destroyed.
5) Why were tests being conducted in Kauai at the same time other tests were being conducted of a similar weapon with greater capabilities? Researchers note: Search the research paper for LEAP (Light Experimental Antiballistic missile Program). This program went into fleet research prior to the Gulf War. While I was deployed aboard the Kuwaiti flag ship, the navy was shagging scuds easily at extensive ranges.
6) Why have the tests at Kauai? What is on the windward side of Oahu that is no where else but (at the time) NCCOSC? Marine mammals. Okay big deal marine mammals, what are they good for? A Pacific bottle nose can find an object at least as small as a dime with its sonar. That would make recovery very simple, and NOSC/NCCOSC operated both facilities. In addition NSWC, NRL, NOSC/NCCOSC, NUWES all acquire their funding from SPAWARS, which acquires its funding from DARPA.
Before you respond, think about what we are looking at, and think about this very carefully: During the past year, possibly two years, has not the present administration been saying the Navy should be the platform for an ABM system? Okay be nice, please.
Additional information in form of a question. Doesn't it all concern money? How much was the deal between China and Loral? Wasn't it in excess of 24 billion? How much did the DNC get? How much did Bill Clinton get? What does this have to do with THIS subject? Consider this, would not the Chinese try and put limitations on Bill considering he's for sale? Would it not behoove Bill to not let other facets of his money acquisition scheme to not know this? If it were found out wouldn't it put a cramp in his deal with China? Any input from those of another aspect? Respectfully, Sword
Hmmmmmmm.... "follow the money" is the mainstay of investigation. And this is a point I hadn't thought of before.
With Clinton, Loral and Hughes and China so miserably intertwined in finance - wouldn't they want to keep a lid on evidence of any high technology "black ops" projects that would anger China? Like anti-missile defense, perhaps?
GPS (satellite tracking) is at issue here. And, by the way, the really big money was not involved in financing campaigns ... but rather, in the new markets and business deals! And within these especially lucrative were the deals involving high technology, and within that group, satellites.
Remember, and I also think Michael Reagan and Rush Limbaugh hit the nail on the head: Quid Pro Quo politics. Bernie Schwartz donated more money to the Democratic/Clinton campaign than anybody on record, and yet the Clinton's desire for personal wealth was staggering. They would step out of bounds of morality regularly flaunting their power within Washington as well as the gray areas of life. Even the contacts Tony "Ducks" Corallo had generated in the late 1960's with the Dixie Mafia helped Clinton. I've been doing research in that one area we discussed. Oh it's good! Between other Mob contacts within the Lucchese crime family, Bill has secured himself a nice little nest egg, somewhere other than the U.S. Respectively, Sword.
With my hypothesis I only used two 5" rounds. With that in mind and some of the fallrates on record, the gun may have just been banging away at the target.
I was able to talk to a friend who works with IFF/UHF. Under heavy jamming it won't read a return. He also said that the odds of being able to get the transponder to register your outgoing signal would be next to nil. Your air search and fire control radars would work, but only with the use of more power, since the EW environment is playing hell with your equipment.
Back to the guns, let's say one missile is used, to conserve ammunition, from let's say a ten round launcher vice a twenty-one, and by the way both the German's and the Italian's have both types. Both countries navies are skilled, along with ours and the Dutch, Brits, and Canadians in littoral warfare. The shooter fires one missile and follows up with a steady barrage of either dual 5" or multiple 3" guns. This would take it appart in mid air, slicing and dicing the fuselage in the area photographed and seen on the net. This would also explain that their was a direct missile hit, and it could have penetrated vice detonated proximity.
The time across the width of the fuselage would be nominal and the delay fuse could have been damaged or delayed even further. Another way of looking at it, when the ejecta is discussed in the documentation, when a round detonates proximity it would display itself on radar considering the amount of concentrated reflective surfaces in one area of space. Anybody's input? Respectfully, Sword
These are some very interesting points! In particular this one:I was able to talk to a friend who works with IFF/UHF. Under heavy jamming it won't read a return. He also said that the odds of being able to get the transponder to register your outgoing signal would be next to nil. Your air search and fire control radars would work, but only with the use of more power, since the EW environment is playing hell with your equipment. Hmmm …. Seems like this would strongly suggest the circumstances were ripe for an accident.
Also the foreign contingent, single missile, multiple gunfire scenario sounds plausible for the observed damage:The shooter fires one missile and follows up with a steady barrage of either dual 5" or multiple 3" guns. This would take it appart in mid air, slicing and dicing the fuselage in the area photographed and seen on the net. This would also explain that their was a direct missile hit, and it could have penetrated vice detonated proximity.
"Since American crews aren't talking, and they would - sooner or later, like they did aboard the USS Iowa - I believe a member of the foreign contingent downed that airplane, and they will not talk to the press. "
First mistake. The crew aboard the USS Iowa did not break silence about the framing of the gay sailor until after Sandia labs had demonstrated that the real cause of the explosion was the over-ramming of the gun propellant, which had been improperly stored and had become unstable.
Second mistake. American sailors ARE talking, just not publicly, because of threats made against anyone who blows the whistle (and indeed whistle blower protection has been revoked in order to make the threats real). If you had read James Sanders' latest book, "Altered Evidence", you would know that he has had most of what happened to TWA 800 confirmed by sources within the Navy and a source within the White House itself. I too have had what happened confirmed to me by a source within the Navy. They ARE talking. But since your theory requires that the American sailors remain silent, that's what you claim is going on.
Alamo, it's become quite obvious that your agenda is to keep the issue of TWA 800 as confused as possible, to "muddy the waters" in order to delay the formation of consensus as long as possible. It's one thing to want to examine as many theories as possible, and quite another to work as hard as you do to keep alive theories which are contradicted by the facts and the eyewitnesses and should have been discarded long ago.
In this thread we have seen you rely on anonymous sources who make erroneous statements in order to promote easily discredited theories, and when the flaws in those theories are pointed out, you attack the source of the contradictions, such as when you insisted that Bill Lisle just had to be wrong when he estimated he was six miles from the launch point, because the warship you wanted to be there wasn't visible to him.
Most of your posts read like the NTSB investigation, flailing about for a plausible cover-story, followed by a search for anything that will support it and an attack against anything that contradicts it.
People who are after the truth know that theories have to be tested and set aside when found wanting, because ultimately, only one theory will fit all the facts and all the observations. Since your goal appears to be to keep as many theories up in the air as possible, it's obvious that the truth is not what you are after.
Re people eventually talking... If the command structure said "we hit the target,[drone] good job" how many people would actually know that TWA 800 was hit? I'll bet it would be very few, right? Of course, evrything is classified so no one is supposed to talk about it, but the real reason nobody talks is that so few REALLY know, although many undoubtedly suspect. What could they say? "Yes, we had a live fire exercise at that time. Missiles/guns were fired. We were told we hit the appropriate targets, but I'm suspicious." If that was the best I could say, I probably wouldn't say anything either.
I'd be interested in your estimate of the smallest possible number of people who would have to know (if this was U.S. Navy friendly fire), and the largest number who would know if the official story to all participants was that they hit the drone[s] and NOTHING else.
"But even if the source were fronting for a team, I would view that as an opportunity to get more details and expertise into the mix." My point is that if he's fronting for a "semi-official Navy team" the intent is not to lead you toward the truth.
I will accept nothing less than the truth. That’s why I won’t dismiss any possibility (my source’s, Michael’s, NTSB or anyone’s) out-of-hand. If any of these possibilities are contrived to deceive, I want to hear the whole, unfettered story here and now so we can test it thoroughly!!! If any of them have weak spots, let’s find ‘em! In the end, the truth will reveal itself…
B I N G O !
Michael Rivero believes it was accidental, a missile launched by a US submarine.
Commander Donaldson believes it was intentional, a shoulder launch from a boat by a terrorist.
You believe it may be an intentionally created accident, a surface launch of 2 RAM missiles plus gunfire – perhaps an ERGM - by either a US or foreign navy in the area
In my humble opinion:
The strongest point to Michael Rivero’s theory is the "dog didn’t bark!" The weakest point to his theory is the submarine launch.
The strongest point to Commander Donaldson’s theory is the debris field. The weakest point to his theory is the "dog didn’t bark!"
The strongest point to your theory is the firepower to damage correlation. The weakest point to your theory is the why it would have been launched at TWA800.
Also, IMHO, the value of these threads is in exploring the strengths and weakness of each opinion. Most all agree there was one or more projectiles launched that brought TWA800 down. These are the major areas of difference that I see:
Was it intentional or accidental?
Was it US or foreign?
Was it a submarine or surface launch?
RAM, ERGM and Mr LISLE
"Source's theory that TWA 800 was hit by RAM or ERGM rather than missile from a surface platform and Michael's suggested possibility of a sub-surface platform both look like reasonable possibilities."
The ERGM carries only enough fuel for minor corrections while guiding in on a stationary target (usually following a laser designator). ERGM is not designed for anti-air use. The maneuvers shown by the radar track and witness statements greatly exceed those of a guided munition, and those witnesses who saw the beginning of the flight reported that the object accelerated upward, something that guided artillery shells do not do.
Keep in mind that the closest witness to the launch point was commercial fisherman Bill Lisle, who estimated his position as just 6 miles from where the object lifted of from the ocean surface and climbed upwards. Given the visibility conditions, Lisle's eyepoint above the waterline and factoring in the curve of the Earth over just 6 miles, it would be impossible for him not to have seen a ship with artillery firing. Artillery gives off a huge muzzle blast. No witness to the start of the object's flight reported such a muzzle flash.
From the last ship I was on, the signal bridge had a 10 to 12 mile horizon. What was the heighth of Mr. Isles? Granted he saw something clear the horizon, but did he see something actually clear water?
As for ERGM, that was only an example, and the math utilized was for standard 5"/54 round with no RAP or ERGM data, simply because I have no mathematical behaviour of that type of round. Instead I used a simple ballistics formula acquired from "A" school. As I stated before in the hypothesis, RAM only has to track via (V sub 0 * Cos theta), the round would correct as required until it acquired athermal lock on the target. Respectfully, Sword.
Artillery rounds do not accelerate. The initial velocity is entirely from the gun. Yet witnesses close to the launch point stated that the object accelerated upward from the surface of the ocean. artillery is inconsistant with the witness descriptions.
Lisle estimated he was 6 miles from the launch point. Were his eyes at the waterline, the drop off at 6 miles due to the curve of the Earth is roughly 25 feet. Lisle was supposedly standing on an upper deck above the actual trawling hardware looking out over the stern. To remain invisible, your hypoehetical artillery AND IT'S MUZZLE FLASH has to remain less than 10 feet above the surface of the water. Lisle did not claim to see the missile rise from the horison, he specifically used the phrase "surface of the ocean".
This artillery story is a red herring.
Did you interview this guy? Were you there? Was anybody else there to coroborate his story? Have you even attempted to look at any of the web pages I have indicated? Have you attempted to do the math? If you think it's a red herring, fine. That's your opinion, and anyone who wishes as well. You, have failed to debunk it, and your beliefs are at best early seventies tactical composition. When was the last time you were in the Med? When was the last time you were in the Pacific? When was the last time you wee in the Atlantic? At sea, doing that haze grey and underway thing? Ever done that? Ever played with any of these toys? Or are you relegated to only seeing them on the Discovery or History Channels?
I facilitated my paper with sufficient facts and mathematics to back my statements. Your failure to debunk them is your fault, not mine. The hypothesis stands with one hole - IFF/UHF.
Apparently you nothing valid to say at this point. I have conceded points that were truthful under the flag of truth, and yet you continue to badger away the points you have made with no substantive comments or facts. In any class room, be it High School, or College, you would have failed to make your point.
By the way, in the fleet, the term artillery is an insult. That is for professional bullet stoppers, and ground pounders. The Grey Hound fleet, to take the name from the Forrest Sherman class of destroyers present at the end of WWII, or the gas turbine driven high tech machines could easily control the skies with missile or gun. Ever heard of envelope protection. In the fleet live it, like it, love it.
We were using guns against punk kids in Beirut, who thought they had a chance at hitting us with Katusha's. If you are at all curious, that was the common weapon used by VC, and NVA forces to blast American positions in Vietnam. I will admit, I was too young for that theater, but I did get to play in the middle east a few times, including Somalia, which was a joke. Another wonderful Clinton fiasco. His typical delay or hand the reins of power over to someone who is as incapable as he is himself.
I lost 5 very good friends of mine in the Marine barracks in Beirut, ain't you nor any one of your cheap nicle and dime followers gonna' get me to change my mind about how that plane was shredded. Yeah, it was a missile, but to rip that nose section off, more than two had to be used. Missiles in conjunction with guns. The range was there, the math will work regardless how you serve it up. Get your calculator out and prove me wrong, that is if your capable using one. Anything for me and I'll be here.TTFN Sword
The error in Michael's logic is that there is another side to the horizon. The guy in the boat could see objects over the horizon at his same height and distance from the horizon.
But he wouldn't for instance be able to see a 144 foot tall ship who would be more than 14.04 nautical miles from the horizon on the other side. If he were standing at 25 feet from the water, he would see the horizon at 5.85 nautical miles. An if he saw the top of the 144 foot ship, it would be 19.89 nautical miles away.
Hence, Michael's logic fails to rule out guns.
Lisle wasn't 14 miles away or 19 miles away, he was 6 miles away.
In addition, your calculations regarding a 144 foot tall ship 14 miles away assume the eyepoint is right at the surface of the water.
At six miles distance, and assuming Lisle's feet were at the waterline, your mythical ship, artillery AND THE MUZZLE FLASH would have to be less than 10 feet in height above the waterline.
Radar showed the object in question climbing almost straight up, then leveling off and flying horizontal. These are motions artillery shells, even guided ones, are incapable of. Even Gerald Bull's gas-assisted shells could not accelerate, they merely retarded drag, and NO guided artillery shell carries enough propellent to fly back and forth while looking for a target. The whole approach to guided artillery is that the original trajectory will put the munition very close to the intended target, requiring only a minor correction to hit the mark.
The fact that the object showed up on radar at all suggests that it was considerably larger than a single round from a deck gun. To track an artillery round (such as when verifying the aiming solution on a battleship) requires special millimeter band radars designed for the purpose. Aviation radars used for civil air traffic use a wavelength that is too long to register something as small as an artillery shell.
If Mr Lisle’s feet were at waterline, and his eyeballs were 5 feet from his toes then his horizon would be at 2.6325 nautical miles (1.17 times 2.25) He would not be able to see water anywhere close to 6 miles away, not at all.
I figured out another way to explain this:
Draw the circle as indicated above, and then draw a man for Mr. Lisle as discussed, then draw a straight line from his eyeballs to the top of the highest point of the circumference and continue the straight line on out. That is his line of sight.
Everything on the other side of the top of the circumference, under the line of sight, is not visible to him.
As you can see, the distance from the line to the circle (water) gets larger as the line extends beyond the horizon.
If Mr Lisle’s eyeballs were 25 feet out of the water (which would be really tall for a trawler) – then the horizon itself would not quite even be at 6 nautical miles (5.85nm) The closer he would be to the water the closer the horizon would be to him and vice versa.
What Mr Lisle said would be true for what he saw, but we must consider his line of sight!
At 25 feet out of the water, Mr. Lisle was approximating a distance on the horizon. It would indeed appear to him like a projectile coming out of the surface of the water as he said. But how far over the horizon the image actually originated he would not be able to say, not at all – unless he knew exactly what kind of projectile he was seeing! The 6 nm figure however would be correct for his line of sight - what he truthfully saw 25 feet above the water, was a projectile coming out of the surface of the water at approximately 6 miles.
Running the numbers for different heights of ships over the horizon from Mr Lisle at 25 feet out of the water with a horizon of 5.85 miles, he would see the projectile but not the boat or the launch unless it were closer than this:
8.19 nm for a 4 foot out of the water jon boat s (1.17 x 2 )+5.85
9.36 nm for a 9 foot out of the water sporting boat
10.52 nm for a 16 foot out of the water yacht
11.7 nm for a 25 foot out of the water large commercial boat
12.87 nm for a 36 foot out of the water navy vessel
17.55 nm for a 100 foot out of the water huge navy vessel
Of course on the tall commercial and navy vessels, the actual decks where the guns or launch facilities would be located are much, much closer to the water than the heights shown.....
I just realized the thread has gotten long again and the lurkers may have lost the formula. Here it is again:
The distance of the horizon (in nautical miles) to an observer on the water = 1.17 times the square root of his height out of the water in feet.
Distance to an object (like the top of a mast) that the observer can see on the horizon equals the sum of his horizon in nautical miles plus the horizon for the top of the object he’s looking at:
Observer’s Horizon (1.17 times sq root of his height out of the water in feet) plus Object’s Horizon (1.17 times sq root of the height of the object out of the water in feet.)
Alamo, you're starting to sound like the FBI. Lisle's eyewitness report doesn't fit what you want to hear, so you simply decide he is wrong and that you know better than he what he was looking at.
You don't know what the basis is for Lisle to estimate a 6 mile distance. Ergo, you lack any foundation to claim he was not being accurate. Given that Mr. Lisle makes his living on the ocean and you do not, the burden of proof is on you to prove he misjudged the distance. Given that Lisle both saw and heard the missile, he may be estimating the dstance based on the delay between when he first saw it and heard it, a fairly common method for tracking a nearby lightning storm. If that is the case his distance estimate will be fairly accurate.
Mr. Lisle stated he was the object rise off "the surface of the ocean". He did not say "over the horizon" and you have no basis to assert that Mr. Lisle did not mean exactly what he said.
Michael, Mr. Lisle could have a hundred years of fishing experience, he might have lived on the water every day of his life … but he cannot change the laws of physics and geometry.
In order to even see 6 nautical miles of water, Mr. Lisle’s eyeballs would have to be 26.2985 feet above the water!!! (6/1.17) squared.
I’m very sure he told the truth of what he saw. But that doesn't require a submarine launch! A surface missile launched or ERGM fired from over the horizon would have appeared to him standing high on a commercial trawler at about 25 feet - as a missile coming out of the surface of the water at approximately 6 miles.
I’m not saying he is wrong about what he saw! I am right now looking for his FBI report to see his exact words and his location at the time.
It takes forever to load the eyewitness reports, my communications are slow tonight – and I don’t know his number and he’s not one of the named witnesses … but here’s his Art Bell interview excerpt. Please note that he was first mate on a charter boat, at the stern, trolling. That would mean he was relatively low to the water at the time (much shorter horizon in nautical miles.) He’s not real sure about the six miles either in this interview, says it could be more.
At the back of a charter fishing boat, trolling – his eyeballs might have been 12 feet out of the water. That would mean he could only see 4.04 nautical miles of water (1.17 x 3.45) That would definitely put a 6+ mile launch over the horizon from his view. He would be able to see the projectile but not the launch, muzzle flash or ship and it indeed would look like the missile came up out of the "surface of the ocean."
Interviewed on the Art Bell show with Cmdr. Donaldson
http://ww2.broadcast.com/artbell/archive98.html#dec98 - choose Tuesday night/Wednesday morning 12/1/98
Bell: Bill where are you located?
Lisle: I'm located in Lindenhurst, Long Island
Bell: Lindenhurst, Long Island. All right. You apparently were a mate on a commercial fishing boat of some kind?
Lisle: Yes, I was first mate on a charter boat fishing for blue fish about six miles off the beach.
Bell: On that night?
Bell: So you had the advantage of being off shore - let's see .. six miles more or less west of the missile launch point and it says here you watched it go from the surface into the cloud and then observed two explosions? Is that correct?
Lisle: Well, everything is correct. What I saw was after it got up into the cloud cover I saw a large flash up in the clouds and then after that like another large flash and then you know I saw stuff coming down
Bell: Right, let's back up. What were you able to see at ground level? What did you see from ground level, from the ocean where you were?
Lisle: Well we were heading west and I was standing right on the stern of the boat because we were trolling what they call .. blue fish (unclear) and I was watching the two lines running out the back of the boat. And all of a sudden I saw this large orange and red thing just take off from the surface of the ocean south east of me.
Bell: Could you.. is there any way .... I know it's difficult to estimate distance but how far would you say this launch was from your?
Lisle: It had to be maybe six miles
Bell: Six miles
Lisle: Maybe a little farther - it's kinda tough to estimate how far but I'd say something in that area.
Bell: Was there any question in your mind what you saw?
Lisle: None, not at all. From day one ... nobody will ever convince me any different about what I saw.
Bell: So you saw a missile leave the sea and streak up into the clouds. You saw one explosion, then you saw a secondary explosion
Lisle: Right, I saw like an explosion up in the cloud cover. I saw a flash - looked like sometimes you see lighting up in the clouds and then I saw another one and that was it.
Bell: You heard Suzanne before you and I'm going to have to ask you some of the same questions. Number 1 - did you talk to the FBI?
Lisle: Yes I did. The second day after the accident they came down to the dock and interviewed me down at the dock
Bell: At the dock?
Lisle: Right. I was a mate on a charter boat out of (unclear) and when we were coming in from a trip they were on the dock and they wanted to talk to me then after we got tied up.
Bell: So you told them roughly what you just told me
Bell: And their reaction?
Lisle: Their reaction to me was: "You actually want us to believe that you saw a missile go up there and shoot that plane down?" And I said: "Yes"
Bell: That was their reaction? My God! So it's as though they were incredulous ...."You want us to believe that?" That kind of reaction?
Lisle: That's the impression I got - yes.
Ever see a commercial fishing boat? There are plenty of places to stand where one's eyes are 20-30 feet above the waterline. …….
As a matter of fact I have. I’ve seen quite a few trawlers in my day. The large trawlers would fit the 25 foot out of the water description - but Mr. Lisle said he was on a charter fishing boat, on the stern. I’ve been on quite a few of those … they are not as tall as trawlers!
You do sound like the FBI. You want there to be a surface ship, ergo the eyewitness MUST be wrong. Lisle HAS to have misjudged the distance, in order for your desired outcome to be true.
Michael, I do not have a desired outcome in this. I would no more let anyone dismiss your theory out of hand than I would my source’s. I want to know the truth – plain and simple. I will continue to look for the strengths and weaknesses in every theory!
You are heavily invested in Lisle's being wrong here, aren't you?
For a ship to be invisible to Lisle, 6 miles away, standing with his feet at sea level, the ship would have to be shorter than ten feet above the waterline. That includes the elevated barrel of the supposed cannon and the resulting muzzle flash. Recall that Lisle saw the object rising straight up, radar tracked the object straight up, ergo the gun would also have to point straight up (which few large naval guns are actually capable of), and the muzzle flash of the cannon would extend several feet above that. Lisle, it should be noted, does not report a sound of a cannon firing when the object appears, only the constant roar of the rocket.
Ships capable of using artillery or firing missiles have a great deal more freeboard than just 10 feet. Even with Lisle standing with his feet at the waterline, the entire superstructure and most of the hull of either the Ticonderoga or Arleigh-Burke class ships would be visible at 6 miles. Even at a greater distance, the superstructures would still be visible, and with a missile launch to pinpoint them, difficult to miss.
For the nth time, my source is not saying it was only a gun. He is saying two RAM missiles plus gunfire, possibly an ERGM – is what it would take to cause the damage we see on the TWA800!!! He is saying that based on personal experience with that kind of firepower - and is trying to figure out how the tar it happened!
You are making it a point to use the low end of Mr Lisle’s estimate – 6 miles – as if it were set in stone, when Mr Lisle wasn’t confident of the number himself! Mr. Lisle said It had to be maybe six miles….. Maybe a little farther – it’s kinda tough to estimate how far but I’d say something in that area.
Remember that Mr Lisle said they were fishing at ---- 6 miles ---- away from the beach, also!
If you are at sea, surrounded by blue water, the way you know how far away something is you just spotted – you use the formulas I’ve been using here. Out at sea, to Mr Lisle, at the highest point of a charter boat --- or on the deck of a big trawler --- at 360 degrees around him --- was 6 miles! At sea, he is in the center of a 6 mile radius view.
Mr Lisle is not sure about the distance in his interview, but he testified truthfully as to what he saw!
Unless he had personal experience with RAM, ERGM (and other suspected projectile) launches under similar circumstances in open water ---- there is no reasonable way he could accurately identify what the projectile was he saw, or how big that projectile was, what kind of trail it leaves --- and consequently, how far away it was beyond what he knows to be true … that is, his 6 mile visibility.
He said And all of a sudden I saw this large orange and red thing just take off from the surface of the ocean south east of me.
The surface of the ocean is his horizon! The object that he saw he judged to be at least 6 miles away – which is his maximum visibility at sea. But it was not conclusive … and he did not say it was conclusive. Consequently, the projectile could have come from a surface vessel of x height relative to y distance just as easily as it could have come from a submarine just over the horizon!!!
Your whole argument is that Lisle might have been wrong about the distance.
Don’t take my word for it, Mr Lisle says his number is an estimate!
Yet the bottom line is that you have no factual basis to claim that he was.
The laws of physics and geometry are in my corner on this one. That’s factual enough for me not to dismiss my source’s theory of a surface launch and gunfire.
Like I said, you are starting to act like the FBI/NTSB. You assume that witnesses whose testimony doesn't agree with your desired outcome must be in error.
I repeat, you are acting like the FBI on this issue. You are pushing this theory of a surface artillery action. Lisle's observations contradict that theory, so your course of action is to assume, without any foundation, that the witness is wrong. Yes, Lisle says his range of 6 mles is an estimate. But that is his best estimate of the distance. You cannot pove he was in error, and if he is not in error, no ship capable of launching missiles or firing artillery could have remained unseen by him.
What I have proven is that 6 nautical miles was beyond his horizon at 25 feet above the water. At the stern of a charter fishing boat, trolling, his eyes would not be at 25 feet. Moreover, Mr Lisle was estimating the distance, and by definition an estimate is not accurate.
Note: we haven’t discussed what may be visible to the naked eye at 6 nm.
My observations do not rule out a submarine launch. My only point is that Mr Lisle's testimony does not rule out a surface launch. It does however strongly reinforce that projectile(s) were launched.
As I recall, your source also claimed that TWA 800 was flown into the W-105 active warning zone. That has been documented an error. Your source also claimed the transponder on TWA 800 was malfunctioning. Surprise, 747s carry more than one! Your source lists a lot of foreign ships with impressive lists of armament, yt does not document that they were present off of Long Island that night, whereas the presence of the Navy leet has been officially confirmed, even if the actual identities of the ships remain withheld for "National Security" reasons.
We are trying to find the errors and weaknesses in every theory. But just because some points don’t hold up to scrutiny, doesn’t mean the entire theory is wrong – or there is not useful information to be had. Likewise, if you or Mr Sanders or whoever are wrong on a given point in your theories, we shouldn’t automatically dismiss the whole thing!
I decline to debate the gunfire issue any further because you insist, wrongfully, that my source is saying that the TWA800 was brought down just with the ERGM gunfire. Repeatedly I’ve tried to correct that misunderstanding.
For Lurkers, please note that the source was suggesting based on his personal experience with naval firepower - that two RAM missiles plus gunfire - possibly ERGM – would cause the extensive damage we see in the wreckage of TWA800.
The witness descriptions indicate the object emitted a great deal of light and smoke, something artillery shells, even tracers, do not do. Radar and witnesses indicated that the object accelerated upwards, something even Gerald Bull's gas assisted artillery shells are incapable of. Radar indicates at least one 90 degree turn at the end of the climb out, a course change guided artillery shells are not capable of.
The mere fact that the object was tracked by prinmary radar indicates a body far larger than that of an artillery shell.
People can see a missile because of its propellent trail and rocket plume. Guided artillery shells, since they do not have a rocket motor for lifting/accelerating, lack these means of easy visualization.
There are dozens of reasons to discard the artillary theory as just another piece of government disinformation to cloud the issue. You cling to this theory, citing an anonymous source of dubious credability, and then atacking any facts or witnesses that don't fit this desired outcome.
If you read Jim Sander's book, "Altered Evidence", his anonymous sources confirm the use of a sub-launched weapon in the accident that took down TWA 800, and frankly, so do my anonymous sources.
The difference is that James Sanders and I don't have to attack other witnesses to the event to make the theory seem plausible. You, on the other hand, do. Your source's theory of a surface gun action requires Lisle to be wroing, so you simply declasre that he must BE wrong, instead of searching for the alternative explanation as to why Lisle (and two oher witnesses out on the water) reported seeing the missile emerge from the surface of the ocean and not from a warship.
I’m not making personal attacks on anyone on these threads! I do not "have to" attack Mr. Lisle’s testimony. In fact, I have never attacked Mr Lisle or his testimony. To the contrary, I have repeatedly said that Mr. Lisle testified truthfully about what he saw.
Mr Lisle said It had to be maybe six miles….. Maybe a little farther – it’s kinda tough to estimate how far but I’d say something in that area. He also said And all of a sudden I saw this large orange and red thing just take off from the surface of the ocean south east of me. He also said I was first mate on a charter boat fishing for blue fish about six miles off the beach. He also said I was standing right on the stern of the boat because we were trolling what they call .. blue fish (unclear) and I was watching the two lines running out the back of the boat
I have proven through running the formulas that Mr. Lisle’s eyeballs would have to have been 26.2985 feet out of the water for him to see 6 nautical miles of water. This means that the estimate of distance he gave for the launch was beyond his horizon. That does not mean he is a liar. Not at all. I believe he testified truthfully.
How about let's just agree to disagree on this one, Michael? I will decline to accept Mr Lisle's testimony as proof of a submarine launch - you may accept it as proof, as you wish.
Keep in mind that of all the lies the Navy has been caught in, the most obvious ones were about submarines. First they admitd to one, then back off and said there were none, then admitted to one, then three, then four, and even now it appears there may have even been a fifth sub out there that night. The New York Times reported that the P-3 closest to the crash had ben flashing laser beams on the ocean surface, suggesting communications with a sub at launch depth. What do you imagine they were talking about? "Hello. How's the water?"
Lisle estimated he was 6 miles from the launch point. Until you can prove he was wrong, his distance from the launch point makes it impossible for a warship to have been present on the surface without the entire superstructure and most of the upper hull being visible.
We are going to have to agree to disagree.
I am not pushing anyone’s theory --- I’m trying to keep all the theories from being dismissed out-of-hand.
Unworkable theories SHOULD be dismissed out of hand. That's how we work our way to the truth.
For instance, I don’t dismiss the missile theory because they didn’t find evidence of high explosives in the wreckage.
And, I don’t dismiss the submarine launch theory because deploying one from a sub would expose the crew to destruction.
And I don’t dismiss the surface launch theory because Mr Lisle observed a thing coming out of the "surface of the ocean."
So, how was life in the convent?
Above is the CNN graphic mapping out where explosive residue was found on the wreckage of TWA 800. The story that this is a remnant of a bomb dog sniffing exercise proved out to be a lie, in that at the time the police officer claimed to be running a training exercise on the deserted TWA 800 plane, airline records prove that the plane in question had a full crew and was preparing to load passengers. The training exercise actually took place on an empty 747 parked at the adjacent gate. ………Keep in mind that in addition to the interior explosive residue, Dr. Bassett found nitrate residue, suggesting an explosive, along the left wing leading edge, despite it having been pressure washed with a hose prior to its arrival at Calverton. When the NTSB was informed of the nitrate result, they ordered Dr. Bassett to cease all testing which would have determined the exact source of the nitrate…….So there in fact was explosive residue on the aircraft. ……This is the starboard side of the reconstructed aircraft. near the center is the break where the nose came off of the 747. Note that the paint scorch marks from the exploding fuel stop at the break, proving that the nose of the 747 was torn off before the fuel exploded. …….Also note at the right side, just below the cabin windows, a puncture through the fuselage. Note that the paint has been scraped off of the metal, indicating a path from external to internal, rather than external bursting out. There is no official explanation for this puncture. ……….Using the cabin doors as lineup marks, we discover that the trail of explosive residue as illustrated in the CNN graphic starts in the area of the puncture and trails back to the area of the break where the foreward section tore away from the rest of the aircraft. This strongly suggests that the residue trail is connected to the breakup of the aircraft, rather than some training exercise (which suposedly took place further aft in the cabin). …..
Sigh ….. having a conversation with you is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
I said For instance, I don’t dismiss the missile theory because they didn’t find evidence of high explosives in the wreckage
And from that you presumed I actually believed the official reports that even with the enormous effort by 500 agents to investigate the missile possibility they were unable to prove it because there was no high explosive residue in the wreckage. And you began your tirade with the words So, how was life in the convent?
Sigh …. The point is I didn’t believe them. Neither did you or a whole bunch of other people. I used this as an example of why we shouldn’t just dismiss theories out-of-hand.
Using my favorite line from Cool Hand Luke - what we have here is a failure to communicate!
" I have proven through running the formulas that Mr. Lisle’s eyeballs would have to have been 26.2985 feet out of the water for him to see 6 nautical miles of water. This means that the estimate of distance he gave for the launch was beyond his horizon. That does not mean he is a liar. Not at all. I believe he testified truthfully. How about let's just agree to disagree on this one, Michael? I will decline to accept Mr Lisle's testimony as proof of a submarine launch - you may accept it as proof, as you wish (#57)"
Ships don't vanish entirely the moment they cross the horison line. Objects just past the horizon line still project partly up into view.
Lisle estimated the distance from him to the launch point at 6 miles. Even if he cannot see the surface at 6 miles, the fact remains that a surface ship of the size needed to launch missiles or fire guns would have to be visible above the horizon line.
If we assume that Lisle was standing with his feet at sea level, then at 6 miles' distance, anything higher than 20 feet above the waterline will be visible above his horizon.
Pictured above is USS Normandy, a Ticonderoga class missile cruiser. As you can see, it is considerably higher than 20 feet above the waterline. Note that the 5 inch gun mount at the bow is itself higher than 20 feet above the water.
Had such a ship been 6 miles from where Lisle saw the missile launch, it would have been visible above the horizon regardless of whether Lisle could see the waterline or not.
Pictured above is an Arliegh Burke class missile cruiser. Like it's older brethren the Ticonderoga, had this Aegis ship been just 6 miles from Lisle's fishing boat, all of the superstructure and most of the hull would have been visible above the horizon.
Regardless of wheher Lisle could actually see the surface of the ocean 6 miles away, it would have been impossible for him not to see a surface warship at that distance.
This is before the lead ship of the class went through her OrdAlt and received VLS for RIM 67 Block 2 C, Harpoon, Tomahawk, and VLA. Mark 26 Twin Rail launchers first appeared on Virginia Class CGN's, then went to the Shah of Iran class Destroyers of which only 4 were built. A few ships in the Ticodaroga class received them, but when VLS became available, these ships were immediately slated for yard periods to upgrade launching systems. MK 26 could NOT launch Tomahawk. This then wouls allow all ships slated for VLS to carry Tomahawk vice the two 4 round box launchers seen on the Cushing, Merrill, and of course the Long Beach which was decommed being not slated for yard period.
Additional information. SPY-1 is old technology, as far as phased array radars go. The Enterprise, Long Beach, and at least the Bainbridge had phased arrays, but due to political haggling between the Soviets and the U.S., we relented and had the systems removed. Hence the square surfaces on all those ships. I am not aware of the Truxton having any phased array capability. Additionally, except for the Nimitz class carrier, and the Enterprise, the nuclear surface fleet is now gone. Reason: Imbrittlement. Enlighten us if you could Mr. Rivero on what that means? Respectfully, Sword
In reply to your #92, even without a muzzle break, the flash from a 5" is relatively small. Lending to prove your point in your argument with Mr. Rivero. A muzzle break is a device that can be used on a lot of different hand guns, rifles, field pieces, as well as naval guns to deflect the rise and torque a bore experiences when the projectile and hot gasses leave the muzzle. Typically this is not seen on a naval gun due to the amount of weight supporting the weapon. I don't believe the 120mm Rheinmetal used on the M1A1 Abrams is breaked either, nor the M-60 A-3, but I do believe you might find pictures of the 90mm used on the M-48 Patton breaked. Please correct me if I am wrong. Respectfully, Sword
Truly, I don't wish to argue this with you any further. But for the sake of the math involved, I shall recap the issue for Freepers and Lurkers passing by:
If we assume that Lisle was standing with his feet at sea level, then at 6 miles' distance, anything higher than 20 feet above the waterline will be visible above his horizon.
If Mr Lisle’s eyes are at 5’ of his body - and his feet are on the water, then his horizon would be 1.17 times the square root of 5’ (2.25) or 2.6325 nautical miles away.
I’m not a Navy person, but it appears the navigation areas would be the first bulky part of the ship that might be visible to the naked eye. The draft (navigation) on the Ticonderoga is 32 feet. So I’ll use that.
On the other side of the horizon, using the 32 foot mark, the Ticonderoga would begin being visible over the horizon at 1.17 times the square root of 32 (5.62) or 6.5754 nautical miles.
Therefore, Mr Lisle might begin to see the top of the Ticonderoga under these circumstances while it was 9.2079 nautical miles away. (2.6325 plus 6.5754)
A bulky object over Mr Lisle’s horizon at 20 feet out of the water would be 1.17 times the square root of 20 (4.47) or 5.2299 nautical miles from the horizon..
Mr Lisle would begin seeing that 20 foot object at 7.8624 nautical miles away (2.6325 plus 5.2299)
The Ticonderoga has these weapons some of which, if fired more than 9.2079 nm away from Mr Lisle, would nevertheless leave a trail that would be visible to him from the waterline on his horizon upward.
1 MK 7 MOD 3 AEGIS Weapons System
2 MK 45 5"/54-Caliber Lightweight Gun Mounts
2 MK 26 Guided Missile Launchers
2 Harpoon Missile Quad-Canister Launchers
2 MK 32 MOD 14 Torpedo Tubes
1 MK 15 MOD 2 Close-in-Weapons Systems (CIWS) (2 Mounts)
1 MK 36 MOD 2 Super Rapid-Blooming Off-Board Chaff System
2 50-Caliber Machine Guns
Whether the path of the trail would seem to be straight up or not would depend on Mr Lisle’s relative position at the time. Do you have Mr Lisle’s witness number on the FBI documents? Or his boat’s number on the radar? I cannot keep my communications up long enough to load the index and his name only appears in one report and the Art Bell interview in all my search engines!
The bottom line – which cannot be resolved without seeing the FBI reports, and perhaps not even then – is that you presume by "surface of the ocean" and 6 miles, it was literally accurate and not simply a description of what he saw.
As I have said before, for him to be able to see 6 nautical miles of water, his eyes would have had to have been at 26.2985 feet above the water - (6/1.17) squared. According to his Art Bell interview he was on the stern of a trolling charter fishing boat, and therefore in my own personal independent you-don’t-have-to-agree-with-me point of view he could not have been 26.2985 feet high out of the water and therefore what he saw was considerably distant over the horizon, meaning to me that the launch could have come from a number of different vessels.
If you will read what Lisle said, he did not estimate a distance of 6 miles to the horizon line, indeed he makes no comment on the distance to the horizon line at all. Lisle estimated the distance to the object he saw rising up as being six miles.
As you yourself confirmed in your calculations, at 6 miles, most of a Ticonderoga or Arliegh Burke class missile cruiser (or similar warship) would be plainly visible to a man whose eyes are 6 feet above the waterline (and it's only an assumption that he was not actually higher than that).
Lisle makes no mention of seeing any such ship.
You certainly are welcome to value the information any way you choose!!!
Some U.S. Navy photos from the US Navy Digital Images database, for your information to help visualize what Mr Lisle might have seen: [see previous thread for photos of ships at sea from different heights and missiles and guns being fired]
Sorry, but I couldn’t find any pictures of ships close to, on or just over the horizon - you'd need to approximate what that might look like. Also the appearance of the horizon might blur or the colors of the trail might be different in higher humidity or greater termperature variation between the sea and air.
Here's a url for more information on blurring and images: http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/td/2706/nradtd2706txt.html
If you have any pictures of just the top of a navy vessel showing over the horizon - please let us know!
Lisle: Well we were heading west and I was standing right on the stern of the boat because we were trolling what they call .. blue fish (unclear) and I was watching the two lines running out the back of the boat. And all of a sudden I saw this large orange and red thing just take off from the surface of the ocean south east of me.
Just weighing in on the distance issue.
I agree with you. Mr Lisle estimated the distance at which he saw the objet rise from the surface of the ocean.
(Quick, someone remind me of what time this happpened. I seem to remember that it was dusk or shortly thereafter)
Judging distance at sea, with no visible landmarks, especially in low light conditions is extraordinarily difficult. Relative size of the object seen is the only clue you have. There are no other visual cues other than the horizon. Assuming Mr. Lisle could see the horizon any object launched from beyond that would look like it rose from the surface of the sea. The horizon border area (to describe the last mile or so to the horizon and the area just over the horizon) can not usually be seen with any great clarity. Humidity effects tend to blur that area so it can not be clearly seen exactly how far an object is. (That is, 1/2 mile from the horizon looks an awful lot like the horizon).
Therefore his statement that it rose from the surface of the sea, isn't really conclusive.
Distance has been ably determined by A-G's math to be over the horizon at 6 miles and again is just an estimate. Any object launched from over the horizon would look to be about 6 miles away (as the horizon is the only reference point)
Now I have a question. Mr Lisle saw a large orange and red thing take off. None of the pictures that I've seen show the bottom of the streak. Could he have actually seen the gun blast from an initial gunfire? I have a picture of a BB firing a broadside on my desk and it is a huge cloud of red and orange fire. I have no experience with night shoots of typical modern Naval guns. Do they put out a fireball as part of the muzzle flash?
Note that Sword's theory calls for both gunshot and missile. Michael already has pointed out that the gunfire would be hard (impossible) to see as it had no propellant trail. However, as I understand it, ERGMs do leave a propellent trail. It is also possible that Mr Lisle saw the missle but did not see the gunfire.
The strongest point to Michael Rivero’s theory is the "dog didn’t bark!" The weakest point to his theory is the submarine launch.
The strongest point to Commander Donaldson’s theory is the debris field. The weakest point to his theory is the "dog didn’t bark!"
The strongest point to your theory is the firepower to damage correlation. The weakest point to your theory is the why it would have been launched at TWA800.
Another strong point to Sword's theory is the dog didn't bark. The Navy has never been quick to broadcast it's mistakes (assuming it was an accidental shoot down from their view point). The why has already been established (Ferrat and Gray). The how this happened is what needs to be determined.
How long have drone targetting type tests been performed in this area and why have no other jets been even near missed. The only one that gets hit has clinton enemies on it? How did we avoid such an accident for so long? What was different on this flight than on any other?
Michael, I have great respect for the work you've done on this. Please let other opinions be aired and worked out before you start labelling people as disrupters. Even if the proposed theory is wrong, perhaps in the discussion and eventual debunking of it new info will surface that will get us all closer to the truth.
It seems that the trail of a missile could be seen at a distance due to brightness, contrast and motion. I'm not sure if an ERGM would be visible except possibly for the initial flash like the regular gunfire shown above. Does an ERGM leave a trail like a missile? It's a moot point because your scenario calls for 2 RAM missiles - just curious...
The thrust of the other photos is to get a handle on what is actually visible to the naked eye at sea, in particular at a distance of at least 6 miles.
I have a strong image of naval officers on all kinds of vessels with binoculars looking out over the sea, or old pirate vessels and sailing ships where the captain is using a telescope. If objects were identifiable to the naked eye all the way to the horizon (at 6 miles or so) I can't explain why they would need optics.
I’ve done thought experiments on this and can’t even imagine what my naked eyes could quickly notice and/or identify at even 2 miles, something perhaps 20 feet high and 30 feet across – in particular looking SouthEast at evening the sky above the horizon would be darker and there would be less contrast or silhouetting.
The reason for all these gyrations is to understand an eyewitness statement that on the stern of a trolling charter fishing boat (which I don’t think would be higher than 12 feet out of the water) – he observed a object coming up from the surface of the ocean at least 6 miles away. By any calculation the object would have originated from over the horizon. Whether by submarine or surface is the issue.
So the point is, if the object originated from a surface vessel instead of a submarine which was close enough to the horizon to be partially visible over the horizon, would it have been possible for a normal person to see and identify it with the naked eye? I am assuming he was not using binoculars or a telescope on the stern of the trolling charter fishing boat since he said he was watching the lines.
Since you have so much experience at sea, do you have any input on these observations?!
In reply to your #106: The sun was very low on the horizon, but not touching, about 90 degrees in relation to its zenith. A naval gun does have a flash, will not deny that. I have seen many night shoots, and they are damn bright.
If Mr. Lisle was in between the target and the shooter, this flash may have been visible to him, but very diffused. Meaning the gun, or missile, was still below the horizon to his plane of reference. He could have also seen a booster stage if Sea Dart were used, implicating the Brits.
RIM 67 doesn't have a booster, and hasn't had one since the advent of VLS, correct me if I'm wrong on this. The RIM 67 has a significant range just on sustain/boost. Or he could have seen the booster from a RAP, or an ERGM round. As stated before in previous emails to Alamo-girl, this could have resembled a shoulder fired weapon from a distance. Respectfully, Sword
Do the relative locations of the plane and Mr Lisle give us enough info to determine where a gunfire round would have been shot from? I know the hit was on the right side of the plane. Where was Mr. Lisle in relation to that.
If the gun flash was bright why would he need to be between the target and the gun?
Assuming a high upward angle on the gun, How much higher would the gun flash project (that is, how much further could you see the flash (against the darkened sky) than you would see the ship)?
If he were looking east, away from the sun, he would have seen it. If he were looking west, into the sun, he would not have seen it. Time of tragedy between 2032 and 2033, sun was still above horizon. You copy? Respectfully, Sword
Let me ask this question. The plane was to the SE of him (?) as was the object that he saw rising. How far SE of his estimated location was the plane and would that allow a ship to be just over the horizon enough that he would see the muzzle flash without really seeing the ship?
You would almost have to graph it to see.
After browsing through all the witness accounts (appendices b through I) looking for boats and "surface" I come up with only one witness who could be Mr Lisle.
The comments by witness 542 align almost exactly with the comments of Mr Lisle as reported here.
These are found on page 74 and 75 of appendix G.
(my eyes hurt. These appendices are all scanned and the quality is not good.)
I couldn't find a readable map on the site though. Do you have a map of where the boats were?
Here’s some information on the radar and analysis: http://twa800.com/pages/radaranalysis.htm
And here’s the radar of additional boats (boat numbers here) http://twa800.com/images/radar_boats.pdf
Short of time today but here's what I have so far.
Was not able to make sense of the radar plots for the boats as I can't find a distinguishing landmark (I have no references such as shore line or crash site)
By following the http://twa800.com/pages/radaranalysis.htm page it lead to a triangulation update page which shows FV 6 as "Scamp V". (I'm assuming FV is fishing vessel) Scamp V was not redacted in one place on witness 542's report. The trangulation shows Scamp V to be due west of the crash site (actually just slightly sw of the final crash site) which lines up exactly with 542's interview.
I cannot determine which point it is on the radar_boats page. (also witness 541,542 are not identified to any boat on radar_boats). I get the feeling that the radar_boats plot doesn't extend far enough out to see Scamp V. (but without references can't be sure.
Scamp V is at approximately 72.46W x 40.39N. 1st evidence of (Missile hit?) looks to be at 72.40W x 40.39N.
(This triangulation update is from Cdr Donaldsons report apparently)
Using the coordinates you have, Mr Lisle’s Scamp V (boat 6 on the other chart) appears to have been 3.1610 miles due West from the first hit on TWA800
I think I did that right. Here are the urls to calculate distance:http://www.nau.edu/~cvm/latlongdist.html http://forum.swarthmore.edu/dr.math/problems/longandlat.html
The direction would indicate his vision would have been with the sun almost directly behind him. That could have blurred the horizons, but probably brightened contrasting metal surfaces. IMHO, non reflecting surfaces would have appeared as silhouettes and would have blurred.
This might also explain more about the path of the projectile seeming to be straight up. If it were rising either more-or-less in front on behind TWA800 - any path along 40.39N would appear to him to be straight up.
I think the next step is to examine the possible range of the shooter. Before going there though, we have to deal with Michael notes thatRadar showed the object in question climbing almost straight up, then leveling off and flying horizontal
All that I have found on Michael’s website on the suspected launch path is at the url below. I can’t see where the longitude/latitude might be in relation to the track - or the scaling - and am having a problem reconciling the speeds v times v appearance of an anomaly on the radar images.http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/RADAR/radar.html
If I’m reading the implications of his radar images correctly, the anomaly would have appeared to the West of the flight, gone straight up, turned horizontal heading East and then caught up with it. I think the logic is that it would have appeared between Mr Lisle and the aircraft. BTW, this runs counter to other eyewitness testimony (on another flight) that the object moved from the opposite direction towards the aircraft.
There were 16,690 feet between Mr Lisle and the first hit of TWA800 and that would be roughly 32.98 seconds at 506 fps (300 knots) The anomaly on Michael’s radar information would have been attacking the flight from at least 30 min 35 s to 31 min 16 s – or 41 seconds. Mr Lisle would have seen the projectile 8.02 seconds before the flight went over his head toward the missile and the missile it seems would have turned the other direction (West) to find it. Either I have an error in my math or logic … or it doesn’t add up.
Back to figuring the possible range of the shooter. According to Sword’s numbers TWA would be going at 506 fps, a RAM missile at 2565.5 fps and the 54 caliber (ERGM?) at 4100 fps. The RAM range is 7.5nm. The range for the ERGM would be 40nm. The only missile that didn’t have the range is the Sea Wolf.
I just received an anonymous confirmed tip from a very reliable source that Mr. Hank Gray was not originally scheduled to fly on TWA800. It was a last minute change and therefore he could not have been a reason for the intentional downing of the flight!
Anonymous tips. "Very reliable source". And of course, you're psychic enough to know these anonymous sources are not government disinfo agents feeding you misleading data in the full knowledge that you'll run right out and post it, right?
Michael, if I said who my anonymous source is, you would recognize the person and agree. But the source wishes to remain anonymous and I shall honor that.
You have never dealt with the logical problems inherent with the theory of a deliberate shoot-down.
Actually I think your own "the dog didn’t bark" logic is the single best argument for an accident that night.
First, why use a missile at all when the pattern for every other suspicious plane crash during this administration has been sabotage?
Sabotage? Are you speaking of the Brown crash? Which others are suspected sabotage? It’s important for the ongoing Body Count research project!
Second, even if one wanted to use a missile to deliberatly shoot down TWA 800, why do it where so many sitnesses would see it? Why not wait until the 747 is over the horizon, then kill it where there are no witnesses on shore, few if any witnesses watching on air traffic radars (which stop at the horizon line), and more importantly as few people as necessary involved in the military itself. A deliberate take down just does not make sense given where it happened
All good points against an intentional downing of the aircraft!
I’ve been really enjoying the counter-theory discussion at the url I gave to John O ----http://ftp.xmission.com/~lawall/twa.html
There are some excellent arguments there also for why it wouldn’t have been a terrorist or a shoulder-fired missile and some very good discussion on the weaknesses in the various other theories. Some of his arguments are strong, some not.
But what I found particularly engaging is the repeated point that it would take more than one missile to bring the plane down. This guy says that’s proof it didn’t happen. The fact that he mentioned it right off the bat makes me suspect that he is an experienced Navy veteran like Sword. I’d like to get these two guys together in a room with a chalk board, a library, lots of coffee and a few calculators!!!
Contrary to this guy though, Sword has given a scenario where it just might have happened with 2 RAMs and gunfire. Also, the guy over there presumes the accident would have to be U.S. Navy and they couldn’t keep a secret like that. He even stretches by overstating how many people would have to have known about it --- thereby discrediting his otherwise interesting analysis. At any rate, Sword has shown us where it could have been a foreign vessel, thus eliminating any cause for confessions.
Truly, Michael, it makes a lot more sense to me that our government would be covering up a misdeed by another government, especially England. It makes for a very liquid "iou" for NATO engagement (like Kosovo for instance.)
In the alternative, if it were U.S. Navy – then as Sword suggests, wouldn’t it make sense that our government would need to cover it up if it were a missile defense test gone awry ---- if it knows that a hint of such a test might create big problems with Russia and China and others? Just a hint of valid national security is enough for keep the silence among patriotic people.
Photographs of left side of aircraft are available via Ian Goddard's website. That is why, in my hypothesis, I believed the hit came from the left vice the right side, and when you look, examine the amount of damage on the underbelly near the wing section. Tremendous amount of structural failure in the area. Another dislike of the Standard missile theory is the trace of propellant exhaust-should have been a lot more! That's a wicked missile with one hell of a lot of thrust, that exhaust should have filled the entire aircraft like a roman candle, which is what the HMS Shefield experienced with the Exocet hit in the Falklands, and has been a major concern for damage control parties. What do you do with a roman candle sticking out of your flank? Respectively, Sword.
A quick one one: The three radar sites were experiencing serious bleed overe from Air Force C-130's who set the range. This would explain the diffeent return rates. If you were able to look atthe logs of the ATC's, you might be able to see where they applied more output power to their radiating radar units to get a signal, this from my "friend" at the lab. See you when the thread is upgraded. Respectively, Sword
Using the coordinates you have, Mr Lisle’s Scamp V (boat 6 on the other chart) appears to have been 3.1610 miles due West from the first hit on TWA800
I came up with 5.2479 miles using the lat-long calculator you linked to above (came up with 6.9 Miles doing it by hand. I'd trust the calculator before I'd trust my calculations though. It's been A long time since I had to mess with this stuff)
Max flight time for RAM is 17.76s based on range of 7.5 nm and speed of 2565.5 fps. Max flight time for ergm is 59.27s based on speed on 4100 fps and range of 40nm. (using 6076 ft per naut mile). (I assumed that 7.5nm was the total flight burn time on the missle and did not assume twists and turns in the flight path, That is, if the missile flew straight for it's entire burn it would go 7.5nm) Travel time for twa800 from Mr lisle's position to (estimated) first impact would be 54.76 sec (based on 506fps and 5.2479 mile initial range).
So a missile could have launched from between the Scamp V and the impact site. However this still leaves the attack angle on the plane and the impact point.
A RAM couldn't have been in the air for 41 seconds. (almost three times it's duration!).
The max flight time for the missile would be if it launched right at his boat and travelled to the impact point. (of course this would mean that it fired after the plane passed over head and would be playing catch up. (is RAM heat seeking? if so, in this scenario it would have hit one of the exhausts instead of the body)
The minimum flight time would have been if it launched from directly below the impact point (in which case the impact would have been on the bottom (or more towards the bottom) of the plane as the missle would be climbing in an arc towards the plane. Neither of these come close to 41 seconds.
What was the elevation of twa800 at first impact point?
Question/possible correction your #151 and additional information to same: Not sure but does ERGM maintain same initial velocity as standard 5"/54 round - which is 2650 fps-? Altitude per radar sites indicated by Alamo-girl was 13,700 feet. If RAM were used during "Back" shot, it would have resulted in severe engine hit, since the weapon would have surely gone on "thermal lock" immediately. Respectively, Sword
A deliberate take down just does not make sense given where it happened.
Except for the fact that USS Vincennes accidently shot down the Iranian plane a few years ago, so an 'accidental' shoot down could be staged. If TWA800 was shot down out of the range of witnesses it would be much harder to sell the accidentalness of it.
What better place to plan a shoot down than a military exercise area where they are firing at drones? What, we shot down a jetliner? And it had a clinton enemy on it? Who he missed in Bosnia? And who just bought a lot of life insurance? Well since it happened in front of so many witnesses it must have been an accident!
[note that I do not assume that the military was actively involved. From their angle it may have been accidental, but putting an jetliner near an exercise area and then making it look like a target isn't beyond the white house bunch.]
Question/possible correction your #151 and additional information to same: Not sure but does ERGM maintain same initial velocity as standard 5"/54 round - which is 2650 fps-? Altitude per radar sites indicated by Alamo-girl was 13,700 feet. If RAM were used during "Back" shot, it would have resulted in severe engine hit, since the weapon would have surely gone on "thermal lock" immediately.
I'll leave the characteristics of ERGM to you. It's way beyond my field.
The altitude was important for flight duration times. I'll try to get more numbers done on that a little later. Is ERGM 2650 fps or 4100fps as reported above?
My thoughts exactly on the RAM. If launched from between Lisle and the impact point it would have to have been launched after the plane passed over head and it would have hit an engine rather than the body.
If it was launched from beyond the impact site then it would have hit the body (likely from the righthand side if launched from due (or near due) east, as the plane was heading just north of east.)
Remember, ballistic trajectory equation can be used as Rate * Time = Distance or: for horizontal displacement(down range) Distance/(V0*Cos Theta)= Time to target; where as in vertical displacement (altitude) (V0*SineTheta)t-(16-t^2) where t= horizontal time to target. My equation also threw in Opposite = 13500 (real altitude:13700), Adjascent= 2.9 NM converted to feet. O=a, A=b, a^2+b^2=c^2 (Pythagorean Theorom) Sq RT(c^2) = H, which is true distance to target. Sine is acquired by O/H= Sine, Cosine=A/H. Using a scientific calculator when the sine or cosine is reached press second button or 2nd, then press Sine^-1 or Cosine^-1 and that will convert to a decimal degree angle. Keep the primary integer(the whole number in front of the decimal, then subtract that.
Multiply the remaining decimal by 60, and that will be your decimal minutes, subtract that whole number, then multiply by 60, this will be your decimal seconds. All equations should be done in decimal degrees for consistancy. When I used the equation (V0*Cos Theta) that was to get a sample time for the RAM missile to get down range. This would facilitate the cosinusoidal wave the weapon would follow in the process of defying gravity.
Unlike a projectile, RAM would be able to maintain its' velocity due to rocket propulsion, but things like Coriolis Affect, gravity, and wind would have to be constantly corrected. The onboard CPU would constantly be updated by the parent radar, as the weapon IS an SM1, until the CPU registerred a thermal lock from the Stinger head. I know that was wordy, but it may help for clarification.
A RAM penetration would have acted similar to the way Sander's said in his book, but a RIM 67 block II, III, IV would have sprayed propellant all over the interior of the aircraft, as well as the exterior, since the nozzle velocity from the thrusters which provide sustained propulsion in the RIM 67 has a significant flow rate. I would also surmise that a RIM 67 hit would have literally destroyed the aircraft. Meaning the aircraft would have been broken to pieces, and significant pieces would have immediately been seen on radar.
Another point, the radar indicated, or "saw", "ejecta" near or about the aircraft. I would like to point out the burst characteristics of blast fragmentation ordinance would have behaved very similar to this. The aircraft was probably being shagged by a gun continuously until it was off the gunners radar screen. This would have explained the sudden loss in horzontal velocity, as well as the severe shredding affect on the underbelly of the aircraft. Respectively, Sword
Correction to my last equation should be (V0*Sine Theta)t-(16*t^2). Sorry, my bad. Respectively, Sword
Another correction: It appears the anti-theory contributions on the site mentioned above are not from a person with any significant Navy experience.
On this graphic http://flight800.org/shp_ln.gif from this webpage http://flight800.org/flotilla.htm please look at the surface vessel marked at 30 just to the SE of the initiating event, it looks to me like it would be in the "straight up" area to Mr Lisle and would have impacted in the right area with the right flight path to TWA800. Is the 30 mark the speed in knots of this vessel? If so, it would pretty much have to be some country’s warship wouldn’t it?
Ian Goddard, on the ships: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/30ships.htm
On the Twa800.com site (Commander Donaldson) I can’t seem to find the boat from the above graphic! Any suggestions?! It looks to me like there are a half dozen or so candidates, but I’m very curious about this one. Help!
Remember, this is what the government was indicating as a helicopter attempting to prosecute a submarine target, but there are others saying that this was a suspiscious vessel, in fact two. Tactically, helicopters like the H-60 Sea Hawk will work in conjunction with S-3 Vikings to prosecute undersea targets. The new H-60's came out with additional LAMPS III capability which included over the horizon radar (120 Mi range) with high survivability in an EW environment, as well as numerous sono buoys. The H-60 also comes with a diping sonar/magnetometer for measuring accoustic and magnetic returns. When they drop buoys they typically do so in lines of five to create a corridor, or a line a submarine has to pass or follow, like hurding sheep or cattle. These can be a mixture of BT's, SV's, or CTD's depending on the quality of return. American ASW teams train against their submarines, and NATO diesel/electrics to improve tactics. This is known as a TACDEVEX. Even though a Russian Alpha is very fast, it is not as quiet as a 688. They also have titanium hulls, which means they have a deep test depth, once. Titanium is extremely brittle, and cannot be stressed too many times. Akulas' are even faster, but maintain a poor sonar suite. With the EW environment as it was, did the radar acquire an IFF/UHF return? If not, my guess is a ship hauling butt. Typically a subhunter will turn up rapid RPM's on it's screws for a short period of time, then coast with the Prairie Masker unit on which generates a bubble wall around the length of the ship. The surface ships ASW suite then can concentrate in the passive, especially in the CZ or the zone at the sonar's horizon, which can be miles in more sensitive units. My guess, our suspiscious boy is a surface unit prosecuting a sub, but maintaining surface warfare ops, and looking for air targets, because the last twelve hours had probably provided a "Target rich environment". Something about American units: Gas turbines are sweet hearts when it comes to power. They have a variable pitch screw in the case of the O.H. Perry class frigate, and two counter rotating screws in Spruance, Ticondaroga, and Arleigh Burke's. The twist is this, the ship maintains constant RPM on the shafts for the first 50% of power and varies the pitch as required, then the old man asks for more turns on the screws. On most bridges you will see this on the lee helm or order indicator to the engine room: STOP, AHEAD SLOW, 1/3, 2/3, FULL, WARP 1, WARP 2, WARP 3. These boys can cruise on a good day the rooster tail will be as high as the main deck. 30 knots is not improbable, nor is it impossible. American ships are designed for the fastest economical speed. I know that was wordy, but speed is a factor here considering present fire and movement capabilities. Respectfully, Sword
This is an eyewitness who tried to call the incident in, but received no immediate reply. Capt. McClaine: I immediately called BOS ATC and reported an inflight explosion out over the water, I stated this twice but didn’t get an immediately reply. ATC then issued a couple of instructions to at least two other aircraft, routine messages. Then another aircraft; Lufthansa, I think, reported that there was indeed an inflight explosion and gave a position report off JFK. I then came back and stated that the explosion and column of smoke was on the Hampton 236 Radial at 20 DME; which at this time was right where we were.The smoke column was just to our left side. Another couple of aircraft came up and also reported seeing fire falling into the sea. ATC the started a short roll call. My First Officer then said to me that he thought it was TWA 800. ATC called TWA 800 a couple of time with no reply. I then said to ATC, "I think that’s them." He replied, "I think you’re right." I then said, "God Bless them." This, ATC's reaction, I believe was due to EW spillover, and the requirement for the ATC's to turn up their gain on their comm signals. Respectfully, Sword
Remember, this is what the government was indicating as a helicopter attempting to prosecute a submarine target, but there are others saying that this was a suspiscious vessel, in fact two.
The graphic in http://flight800.org/shp_ln.gif (which the page says comes from NTSB) shows this as a pound sign, which it says is a surface vessel in the legend.
It appears it is going 30 knots and it appears to be under 3 miles away at the initial event. If it were misidentified on the chart it’d have to be a helicopter or a Harrier ---- but I think that the P-3 is the submarine prosecuting aircraft.
Therefore, seems to me the NTSB graph is right on the nose – it was a surface vessel! And at that short a distance IMHO he would be using gunfire along with the RAMs!
According to the composite graphic from the radar section of twa800.org – the P-3 was considerably South West of our possible shooter’s location at initial impact! Oddly, that graphic (Commander Donaldson) shows what appears to be this boat as a 30 knot track and has him way out of position according to the time on the NTSB graphic! Very strange!
The P-3 craft and this 30 knot boat are two different items on the radar. And the 2.9 NE mile boat that Commander Donaldson alleges was the source of a terrorist shoulder fired missile is not the same as the 2.7 SE mile boat I’m talking about here . The http://twa800.com/pages/radaranalysis.htm acknowledges they are different and only offers the FBI letter as an explanation at url: http://twa800.com/letters/fbi.htm ---- but that letter only specifically addresses the unidentified boat that Commander Donaldson speaks of at 2.9 miles --- not ours!
Seems to me we have a good candidate for our shooter. It was in the right position, was curiously not identified and was going 30 knots!
With the EW environment as it was, did the radar acquire an IFF/UHF return? If not, my guess is a ship hauling butt. Typically a subhunter will turn up rapid RPM's on it's screws for a short period of time, then coast with the Prairie Masker unit on which generates a bubble wall around the length of the ship. The surface ships ASW suite then can concentrate in the passive, especially in the CZ or the zone at the sonar's horizon, which can be miles in more sensitive units. My guess, our suspiscious boy is a surface unit prosecuting a sub, but maintaining surface warfare ops, and looking for air targets, because the last twelve hours had probably provided a "Target rich environment".
I think you’re right about this, Sword! I’d wager a cup of coffee it was a foreign boat on its way to W-105 for the exercise.
Very interesting, Sword!!! If I'm understanding you right the EW being conducted has messed up the ATC communications (and possibly the signals that would have kept TWA800 from being targeted) .... so the ATC is doing a roll call to be sure which flight it is they just lost. Perhaps the three very strangely off radar tracks for TWA800 are another symptom of the EW?!
I went back to the flight800.org site and again downloaded and played over and again the animation of the boats and planes. The W-105 area is marked.
Our possible shooter is in just the right position at the right time, as expected! The flight800.org/flotilla page really goes into a lot of description on what is happening with our possible shooter and why it appears to be a part of the naval excercise going on in W-105!!!
But in playing it so many times, it also seems the actions of the airplane that flew North West out of W-105 and abruptly turned completely after the crash and flew right back into W-105 .... might be indicative of EW problems.
Another kicker: on the flotilla page it says W-105 was activated that day for exercise which I understand is much more hazardous than training.
I agree. The se 2.7nm boat (30Knot track) would be in the right position for a "Straight up" shot as seen from Mr Lisle's position.
His speed (assuming he started at 30knots) breaks down to 50fps which leaves him at about the right position for the full length of time from the plane passing over Scamp V to the initial impact. He only moves about 3000 feet per minute and the TWA800 transit time was 55 sec. He's well with range of both gun and RAM type missile.
Thought just occured to me. Could Michael's 41 second radar track be a target drone? What speed do they move at?
In reply to this: But in playing it so many times, it also seems the actions of the airplane that flew North West out of W-105 and abruptly turned completely after the crash and flew right back into W-105 .... might be indicative of EW problems. The C-130's that set the range cruise in preindicated areas. These areas would have to be in the brief prior to the exercise. In wartime, these boys would be flying with all their "Noise Toys" in full operation with a fighter escort. The fighters would be relying on computerized satellite downloads in link format so they could see prospective targets while protecting the EW aircraft. The EW aircrafts job is to limit or immobalize comms if not totally, at least partially so the bad guys are forced to give up their positions. This was probably one of our EW boys. Did he have a IFF/UHF transponder code? I also have some technical data as to the fall characteristics of the 747. When I get the time to post them I will later today. Respectfully, Sword
Could Michael's 41 second radar track be a target drone? What speed do they move at?
I’ve been all over the place looking for drone information. There’s a lot of information out there! It seems to me that if this were a drone, it would have to have considerable maneuvering ability to match the 41 second radar information.
It appears the only unmanned craft that have characteristics of strong vertical launch and loiter are the super-expense Northrop Grumman UAVs, but they didn’t begin testing until December of 1999. http://aerotechnews.com/starc/1999/122999/Northrop_UAV.html
This is a drone, but not a combat drone. Combat drones simulate combat attack profiles and radar emissions. This item is designed to carry a 200 pound payload of observational equipment. This is designed to do BDA (Battle Damage Assessment), as well as observation of enemy movement under stealth considerations. Right now the only platform the navy is using for this, to my knowledge, is made by Isreali Aircraft Industries. Respectfully, Sword
This 1997 article says the Scorpion has a speed of 173 mph and will loiter at 63 and has a near vertical launch and recoveryhttp://www.manufacturing.net/magazine/dn/archives/1997/dn0519.97/10f1479.htm.
This was the item I was discussing from my previous posts. I saw one of these launched from the USS IOWA via rocket motor and rail, similar to an Estes rocket. When the rocket finished burn it was ejected, and the engine, which was running at take off took over, and the aircraft, the size of a baby buggy, was radio controlled to the observation site. Respectfully, Sword
Here is a 1996 article from fas.org on state-of-the-art at that time for drones: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/tradoc/usaic/mipb/1996-3/wilson.htm
The bottom lines seems to be that if it were a drone in 1996, it would have been ahead of the publicly known state-of-the-art and very, very expensive. Notably, the discussion about vertical launch and loiter drones usually involve reconnaissance instead of target practice – but I presume it would be possible they would salvage obsolete prototypes for weapons testing.
I think much of the identity information on the aircraft and boats is still being withheld by the FBI according to this url http://twa800.com/letters/fbi.htm From Ian Goddard’s site we know there was a ANG C-130 in the area, but I haven't found it on the radar yet, and I don’t know which track it would be…
You ain't gonna see it. When the aircraft flies westward, it turns it jamming equipment off facing westward, it can do this at will with the equipment on board, that made it visible. When all its jamming equipment is on, that baby blots out miles of real estate. And how do you know that is not one during transit, not transmitting. The Air Force uses several of these guys on a range. They will show you one, but is it the right one? Will they release its mission capabilities - I think not! These are not training birds. If a war comes, these guys will be in the field using the same equipment doing the same job, flying along a race track configuration, loitering in a figure eight, or just transiting back and forth misforming the lobes of white and pink noise they create. If it had been radiating in the direction it was traveling, most of New york, and that section of the eastern sea bord would have complained of the intermod in not only the UHF, but VHF, ELF, and Microwave spectrums. All those cell phone users would have sufferd from the "ducting" created by the skip of the ECM over water, especially 900MHz phones that transmit on or near the 880 MHz frequency. That spectrum travels very far, at the altitude the C-130 was at, transmissions into Pennsylvania would have been interfered with. This kind of disproves the liberals belief that a telephone, one that transmits in either VHF or UHF, causes damage to the user via microwave emmittance - how? Can't happen. Most hand helds are restricted due to FCC regulation part 47 that dictates maximum wattage output, which is maybe 5 watts. That is why repeaters crop up on all the buildings in your neigborhood. So they can amplify output signals from phones to reach intended receivers. Same repeaters would have been "jammed" by said C-130. Knee jerk reactions from liberals prove only one thing, they are idiots. Sorry for the outburst, but the truth is the truth. ...from the velvet lies, comes a truth as hard as steel... Respectfully, Sword
To figure some of this out I imagine we’ll have to rely on logic. For instance, a plane coming out of W-105 while it is active for exercise would logically be a military craft. The plane turning around and flying back into W-105 immediately after the crash of TWA800 would logically indicate that the military knew the crash had occurred and directed the plan back. The fact that the boats ---- and in particular our suspected shooter --- didn’t turn around to lend aid or even break stride, but headed for W-105 indicates they were under some military command.
All of this goes to Michael’s "dog didn’t bark" logic --- by all appearances of the conduct of the boats and this aircraft, the military knew that TWA800 was down and more importantly they knew why it was down. That is, if they didn’t know why it was down, they would have reacted aggressively because it might have been a terrorist incident.
So the next logical conclusion, since there have been no confessions or rumors afoot, is this: either the shooter was from another country’s navy involved in the exercise or it involved something of such importance to national security, any enlisted person would be obliged to keep a lid on it.
Considering the number of deaths involved I personally suspect one of our sailors would break the silence eventually if only to his spouse and from there it would be a rumor – so right now, I’m more inclined to think it was a foreign vessel.
Notice on the animation how our suspected shooter – right after the crash - scurries within about ½ mile of a another boat just North West of W-105 heading toward W-105. What is particularly curious is how quickly yet another boat which starts at the very top of the animation is rushing to W-105 and joins up with the other two right after the accident. Curiously, our suspected shooter looks "wedged" between the other two. That cluster of boats is key IMHO! http://flight800.org/shp_an.htm
Do you think Michael's 41 second radar image (actually 4 blips) could have been a Scorpion? Since the image came from a location without any boats or aircraft on radar - it would seem (IMHO) to have to have been launched by a sub (which seems illogical) - or to have been hovering in a fixed location.
If they were creating, obscuring or misdirecting signals that night it might help to explain why the three radar tracks on TWA800 had so many anomalies. It might also help to explain some of the "ghosts" and odd blips - like the 41 second item we've been discussing.
But some of the radar hits are apparently real, which leaves me still confused about what that plane on the animation might be that is tracked on radar leaving the W-105 and abruptly turning back around just after the crash.
In reply to your #18: The problem I have with a sighting of a drone for 41 seconds is this. A drone simulating a cruise missile attack has a low horizon to horizon profile. A person would have to know that it was coming to see it pass nearby and then track it. Remember the Tomahawks that were filmed by CNN crews during the war following the main freeway into Baghdad, how long was that sighting. Those were traveling at about 500 mph. Secondly, it is small and narrow, this would not be conducive to easy sighting. Respectively, Sword
I agree with you that it is not a drone, we just need to address each possibility that comes up. This one is illogical to me because of the flight characteristics.
It was only captured on radar for 4 blips at 4 second intervals and then --- as the theory goes --- went super sonic plowing into TWA800 ---- it being the suspected missile launched by a sub (as I understand it!) From first blip to TWA incident was 41 seconds elapsed. The distance is very short which would require a lot of control, loitering and quick take-off.
We've found a good candidate for our shooter as a surface vessel matching Mr. Lisle's eyewitness statement. It fits the weapons capabilities, flight paths, timing, etc. Which leaves us with these 4 blips.
I recall that the blips have been written off elsewhere as glitches on the radar. But if they were real and not a missile, the question is whether it could be a drone.
My opinion at this point is that it could not be a drone due to the alleged flight path and technology back in 1996 and the lack of launch point, other than by submarine. I haven't seen anything to indicate a drone could be launched by a vertical launch tube, and as I understand it only Russia is known for sure to have the missile launch from submarine capability. (And we don't know if that would also support a drone launch...)
To your #20: Doesn't sound feaseable to do so, the only Soviet boats that do that are the Echo and EchoII, possibly Foxtrot, and they are diesel boats. RAM is Mach 2 capable at sea level, and is screaming out of the launcher. The problem with jamming is that it can do things to radar, cause ghosts, incorrect speed assessments, that kind of thing. RIM 67 variants aren't known to go "terminal". They fly pretty fast, at least like the Phoenix, which is at least Mach 3.8 capable, maybe more. More data to follow later. Respectfully, Sword
To your #20: The fastest drone out there, and it isn't spoken of very often is Talos. You have to have a range, and typically is launched from WSMR (White Sands Missile Range). Its' speed and altitude capabilities are still classified. It is a 36" diameter three stage weapon designed for use by the Chicago class (Chicago, Albany, and the third escapes me) all now decommed, as well as the light cruisers like the Oklahoma City - also decommed. Speed capability is definately in excess of Mach 3 at sea level. A cruise missile drone would have to facilitate low end of Mach 1 more likely near Mach .80 or slightly higher, similar top speed assessed by the B-52 and the 747. They are radar elusive, which means they carry a variety of ECM survivable electronic navigation and link packages, and ESM package to verify targets, and corridor assesment. They fly low and skimthe surface of the terrain or sea to confuse radars. Slow speeds are desirable since high speed horizontal displacement is easy to recognise from satellite. When they are used they are launched down a corridor, and snake their way towards the target. ELINT data has already been downloaded into existing CPU for threat profile verification. They know what the hostile radars and jammers are, therefore they have the ability to discreminate against unknowns, or less profitable platforms - they think! A carrier is so much better than a destroyer, this is what makes them discretionary. The Harpoon, and SLAM variants were the key to this. When they were designed they were thought to be fire and forget. Problem was they weren't discreet enough, and would slam into non target vessels. This was corrected with data link capability. SLAM is third generation with germanium optics in the nose. The Harpoon used to rise above the target and attack from above, but this afforded CIWS units more attack time, now side attacks are the norm since late 70's. Gotta' roll. Respectfully, Sword
The third was the Columbus, Talos was also on CGN 9 Long Beach. This is from Naval Vessel Register
To your #23: I don't agree with this statement that you quoted - One target with a SSE heading was animated into an aircraft from 27 RADAR hits. This aircraft, captured on the Islip, Long Island primary RADAR appeared to change course (away from the tragedy) at the moment Flight 800 exploded. Three to four RADAR hits of this target were published in the Paris Match magazine in March of 1997. Since this publication the FBI has stated (FBI NY Office Nov. 18, 1997 Press Release) that the data was simply "a Ghost of Jet Express 18 which was at a different location." And on December 8, 1997, the NTSB published (Exhibit 13A) four more RADAR hits (then, a total of eight), while suggesting it may have been caused by reflected RADAR signals from an aircraft at a different location. However, independent RADAR experts disagree with the official interpretation of this object, in light the 19 extra RADAR hits which extend out to 36 miles from the RADAR antenna. These experts believe the target is real--in other words an aircraft. - Since when do operators see ghosts on present day systems? That dog won't hunt! So it is apparent ASW ops are underway. The only way the P-3 Orion would have seen any form of missile would have been with its germanium sensors, because he was traveling away from the incident area. Our boat is traveling just over 58 fps which equates to 3496 feet per minute. Considering his position, attitude, and speed, he was way way outside for any shoulder fired weapon considering the correction factor the weapon would have to go through: A) chasing, B) more chance for an engine hit if hit occurred, C) P-3 would have definately got a visual on the launch. Was he the shooter though? Attitude of "anomoly" to target A) port side of flight 800, B) in front of witness airliner - no engine exhaust visible to crew of airliner (no rocket flare). More to follow. Respectfully, Sword
I’m getting frustrated now! This is too easy, waaaay too easy!!! Surely someone else has noticed all of this before. I must be reading this all wrong – it can’t be this easy! Someone, please straighten me out!!!
Please load up all these in different windows and compare them:
The position shown for our prospective shooter (30 mile track) at the initiating event has it further South of the P-3 than the NTSB graphic. Also, it doesn’t show the Michael blips. And it doesn’t show the aircraft going 475 knots just SouthWest of the P-3 at the initiation event heading towards the W-105 South East (it may be out of its range.)
This one does not show any boats! It identifies in a red circle a dot which appears to be US Air Flight 217 heading North and in a yellow circle what it says is the P-3. At 31:16 it still shows TWA800 (the initiating event was 31:12) and has the red and yellow circles overlapping. Several of the blips are pictured in the panels. This must have been taken at a huge distance because the aircraft (P-3 and US Air) were not close at the initiating event and even further apart at 4 seconds after. It shows the blip (suspected missile or drone) 4 seconds after the initiating event occurred, making the its-a-missile theory too late based on the time and their position. At the time of 31:16 - their relative position would appear to be correct with the P-3 slightly to the SouthWest of the US Air 217. At 31:12 the P-3 would have been South East of US Air 217.
Flight800.org NTSB http://flight800.org/shp_ln.gif
Shows our prospective shooter going 30 knots and at 2.7 miles of TWA800 at the initiating event. Shows the P-3 at 324 knots at the initiating event almost due West of our boat - and heading SouthWest. It does not show the US Air flight 217 heading North which was slightly North West of the P-3 at the initiating event! And, it doesn’t show the Michael blips! Please also notice it shows an aircraft heading SouthEast towards W-105 at 475 knots just South West of the P-3! It appears to be too far South and moving too fast to be Michael’s blip…
Flight800.org Animation http://flight800.org/fl800320240fast.avi
Strangely, the animation does not show the P-3, the US Air, the 475 knot aircraft or the Michael blips! But it does show the W-105, our boat and a flotilla of what appears to be military vessels heading into W-105 … plus the strange maneuver of the plane that left W-105 only to wiggle and turnaround sharply right after the crash. This just screams Michael’s "the dog didn’t bark!"
The comment on flight800.org describes what I suspect may be evidence of drones or EW activity - as follows:
One target with a SSE heading was animated into an aircraft from 27 RADAR hits. This aircraft, captured on the Islip, Long Island primary RADAR appeared to change course (away from the tragedy) at the moment Flight 800 exploded. Three to four RADAR hits of this target were published in the Paris Match magazine in March of 1997. Since this publication the FBI has stated (FBI NY Office Nov. 18, 1997 Press Release) that the data was simply "a Ghost of Jet Express 18 which was at a different location." And on December 8, 1997, the NTSB published (Exhibit 13A) four more RADAR hits (then, a total of eight), while suggesting it may have been caused by reflected RADAR signals from an aircraft at a different location. However, independent RADAR experts disagree with the official interpretation of this object, in light the 19 extra RADAR hits which extend out to 36 miles from the RADAR antenna. These experts believe the target is real--in other words an aircraft.
It appears from the description that they want us to believe the Michael 4 blips we’ve been looking for are just a segment of the full 27 that are animated as the plane that flies SSE through the animation! However, the animated plane is waaay South and West of where the P-3 and US Air and blip would have been at that time! From the above graphic these flights were slightly NorthWest of our suspicious boat!!!
Please notice on the animation that another plane begins on the animation directly overhead a surface vessel and is headed for W-105! And at the very moment of impact on the animation, the blips-charted-into-a-plane are directly on top of another boat!
If I’m reading all of this correctly, we do not have anywhere a graph or animation that puts all these key facts together at the initiating event in a format that can be read by a layman!!!
If we did have such a graphic or animation, IMHO what we’d see is a web of EW activity and/or drones way North of the W-105 area, an accident fixing to happen – especially with foreign vessels in the area!!! Whether or not the accident would have been planned is another issue…
Candidate evidence of EW activity and/or drones include:
The Michael 4 blips and
The 475 knot aircraft and
The 27 blip radar track and
The Plane leaving just over a boat into W-105 and
The anomalies between the three radar tracks of TWA800 (http://twa800.com/images/compositeradar.gif)
Help!!! If I’ve made an error in reading these graphs, please show me!!!
In the animation there is a plane going from nnw to sse. Just prior to initial event it is in alignment with TWA800 and the 30knot boat.
Who or what is this? I can't seem to find an ID for it.
It seems that the 475knot track is more to the south (or is this it?)
Thank you for pointing that out! Great observation, John O!!!
By my understanding, the airplane you describe is the one flight800.org put in there because of the 27 radar hits. Their paragraph description of it is indented in the post above.
The 475 knot airplane only appears on the NTSB graph and is very close, just South of the P-3!
To your #23: There is a gap in time! There are two missiles! Look at it closely and examine the sequences! Look after the gap and see the long blip, above it. What is that? Ejecta! That's got to be a proximity blast fragmentation round reflecting radar! Check out your second web site listing and carefully go through the data. 12 seconds my butt! That's two missiles, look for the gap in time. In between the first pass where the missile is "seen" and the second. The second pass there is no missile. Check it out, I'm certain! Sword
Using what you’re saying and the Michael blips, the second missile could be our 2nd RAM being fired from our boat. The first one would have been off-the-screen West from the flight800 NTSB chart. What do you want to bet they were firing at the 475 knot aircraft (drone, perhaps?) and TWA800 was accidentally picked up instead?
Both the one that meets up with our boat (part of the same country’s navy?) after the crash and another one that doesn’t stop are headed to W-105 – without more detail, either could be the source of the first RAM based on the Michael blip at 30 min 40 s.
This would make sense if the particular foreign naval contingent was misinformed (or didn’t understand) the true boundary of W-105!!!
Just going by the animation a whole lot of people didn't know the boundary of W-105. There's a whole fleet of ships moving towards it and several planes.
I can see it being accidental from the shooter's viewpoint (he'd be firing at the 475K plane which lined up with TWA800. ) but I still suspect that things were arranged to put the flight in harms way (Yeah I know, Bill couldn't guarantee a shootdown but if it did happen it would be tough to prove he did it.)
Of course we now get into the "what did the shooter know and when did he know it?" stuff.
Which leads me to your statement: I can see it being accidental from the shooter's viewpoint (he'd be firing at the 475K plane which lined up with TWA800. ) but I still suspect that things were arranged to put the flight in harms way (Yeah I know, Bill couldn't guarantee a shootdown but if it did happen it would be tough to prove he did it.) Again, what you say is very plausible! If we can only find out who let that 475 knot plane fly .... maybe, just maybe ... we can figure out who set this accident up and if they did it on purpose!
IMHO it wouldn't be that hard for someone with connections. Issue a wrong W-107 or W-105 to a Foreign Contingent and let fly a 475 knot drone on an overlap path to TWA800 - i.e. when TWA800 is off the ground, calculate the triangulation and let it go!
(by the way, the scenario that you and SS have developed here looks very right to me also.)
This would mean Mr Lisle saw the second RAM but didn’t notice the first one, though he probably heard sound when the first one hit which may have caused him to glance in the right direction in time to see the 2nd one (just a guess…) It could explain some differences between eyewitness statements!!!
This makes the identity and origin of the 475 knot aircraft key!!! I’ll bet it wasn’t our Navy that launched a drone waaay North of the W-105!
They lost the visual when they attempted lock, and then they locked up on the wrong aircraft. High ECM propogation denied use of IFF/UHF. They "pickled" their birds, and started banging away with the guns in relatively close sequence to my hypothesis. With the amount of damage, the aircraft expereinced severe loss of CG (Center of Gravity), and a severe forwardization of CP (Center of Pressure). Respectfully, Sword
This sounds and feels right to me, too! It falls together naturally resolving all the seemingly incongruous evidence - without torturing - and that's the way the truth should feel in my humble opinion....
I'm anxious to hear the reaction of others to this!!!
The behavior during and after the incident convinces me the shooters were not U.S. Navy. And of all the equipment in the Foreign Contingent, the only one I'm reading having RAM (SAM) is Germany.
Italy as well. Both countries were and are tips of the sword against Soviet and anti-Nato military moves. The Germans' in the Baltic, North, and Norwegian Seas; and the italians for the Medeterranian, Adriatic, Ionic, Seas, as well as the Dardanelles. Both countries have ships that typically carry an excellent mix of guns (76mm and 127mm OTO Breda/Malera), missiles (RAM, OTO MAT, Sea Sparrow, and Standard SM1), as well as good (not great) ESM/ECM suites. It's only obvious they can stay alive in a nasty EW environment. Somebody I would want to have on my side, and glad they are, but this has to be addressed. Is there a way somebody can make a graphic, totally separate from what we have seen, and piece this all together. And the kicker - who was the shooter. We know it was an accident - most likely at this point in time. Got an idea, check the news papers during that time frame, before and after the incident for port visits in the Tidewater, and New England ports by foreign military shipping, they are typically listed. We may get a hint that way. It's got to be fast, our boys in Wash. D.C. may not be liking the way this has turned out. Damn good hunting folks! Respectfully, Sword
Also we need to double-check and try again to explain in layman's terms why the TWA800 wreckage evidence is compatible with RAMs and not with what most people would think of as a missile - although a RAM is a missile.
For instance, as I recall and with my non-technical memory (LOL!), you mentioned the wreckage did not have evidence of a non-RAM missile's rocket fuel which would have spewed inside and outside of the airplane on impact. And I recall the analogy of "unrolling barbed wire" at intense speed, before impact and the 1 inch tungsten cubes penetrating from a RAM. A paragraph or so with easy-to-understand terms like these would help a lot!!!
The first RAM coming from one of the two boats that were NorthWest of TWA800 would probably have caused the first debris field noted on the http://twa800.com/images/plots.gif "Crosswind blast debris" Notice where the first parts of the debris were detected at 31:16:22
It seems logical to me that the second RAM coming from the 30 knot boat would have caused the "Red Zone Debris" field. John O says Max flight time for RAM is 17.76s based on range of 7.5 nm and speed of 2565.5 fps That would be about 6.92 seconds from the second RAM launch to hit. The suspected shooter (30 knot boat) would have launched just before 31:16 from over 3 nm creating the Michael blip and hitting on the radar track right before the yellow "Nose Section" area of the "Red Zone Debris" field on the twa800.com graphic. It fits!
To your #39: Remember, you can't use lateral distance. You have to trig it out. The Hypotenuse is the true distance, and you have to compensate for not only the true distance, but horizontal angular displacement from shooter to target. Plus you must consider targets speed and relative motion on a second by second basis. We all know there was an in flight correction, most likely immediate post launch correction for attitude and altitude (azimuth and elevation), eyewitnesses corroborate this fact. That will have to be pinned down using an X/Y curve for plotting purposes. Respectfully, Svalbardt
My best guess for the first shooter is the fast boat that rendezvoused with the second shooter after the crash. The only reference point I have for him is the animation and Michael’s blip which first registers at 30 min 35 s. and stays about 12 seconds. Because there is a 4 second spread between blips, the RAM could have been aerial for 15 seconds or more – making the fast boat a good choice. It does however also mean there was a pretty good sized lapse between the two shots - approx 41 seconds (30:35) and (31:16) …. On the other hand, they would not have known they had the wrong bird until after the second RAM was launched…
We need a Freeper graphics expert to create a new animation or map/graph overlaying all the information we’ve gathered up in post numbers 23 to this one! We believe that Michael Rivero’s information when combined with the other information from the sites shown will give us a much better picture of what happened and will confirm (or rebut) this hypothesis!!!
We are looking for any military German or Italian boats that may have docked on the Atlantic seaboard shortly after the downing of TWA800 on July 17, 1996. To get an idea of why, you might wish to review all of today's postings to this thread...
New London, Conn:
New Port News, Va
To your #43: Specifically - Tidewater area: Portsmouth, Hampton Rhodes, Yorktown, Norfolk, Little Creek, New Port News, etc.; New York City: Long Island, Manhattan, Major Hudson or East River area ports - is Brooklyn Navy yard still in operation? Those areas.; New England: Boston, Philly, any where New Jersey, Dover, Three Rivers area in Pittsburgh. The listing will be in news papers, and there is a specific section allocated for ship movements (military and civilian). These guys would be coming in on a liberty cruise. Pro conservative long shoremen would definately know. Small papers in the areas listed would carry same information. Don't know all the papers in the area so there is no way I could successfully do the research. We are breathing down their necks here folks. Respectfully, Sword
Hank Gray was the CEO of Memphis Tennessee based Midland Financial. Midland was an insurance Company that primarily underwrote car insurance in the region. A number of weeks prior to the loss of TWA 800, Midland recieved a friendly offer to be bought out by Danielson Holdings (almost certain of the name Danielson.) Gray and some execs from Danielson were flying to Paris that day to shore up financing for the takeover. Needless to say, the merger was called off after Gray died. I'm almost certain that matters of probate do not apply here. Now, if anyone wants to dig deeper, you should go to www.freeedgar.com and pull up the 1996 SEC (Securities an Exchange Commsion) Form 10K or forms 10Q for either Midland, and or Progressive.
Please compare http://184.108.40.206/roadshack/military/airspace/eastern/atlacity.htm to the NTSB graphic http://flight800.org/shp_ln.gif to the animation http://flight800.org/fl800320240fast.avi
Please look at the various edges and angles of W-105 in these graphics and the location of W-106! TWA 800’s initiating event was at 72.40W x 40.39N
It sure looks to me like some or all of our shooters, the flotillas and TWA-800 were in W-106!!!
W-106 wasn’t supposed to be active that night, but we know it was because:
"….The statement by a spokesman for the 106th Air National Guard Unit, issued soon after the disaster and never withdrawn, is that units of the 106th were carrying out activities in an area of the Atlantic known as "Jaws". "Jaws" is known by another name : it is Warning Area 106. Specifically, the 106th ANG had a fixed wing aircraft, an HC-130, described as a "air tanker...designed for search and rescue" and an HH-60 rescue helicopter in "Jaws" immediately prior to the explosion. The HH-60 had left the area and its crew observed the explosion of TWA 800 from low altitude at its base, Gabreski Air Station (sometimes referred to as simply "Gabreski Field"). The press release from the 106th ANG stated : The HC-130, call sign King 74, was just leaving the ocean training area known as "Jaws" when the explosion occurred. King's crew called in the report to the Gabreski tower and flew to the scene. When they arrived a minute later they found smoke, burning fuel, and aircraft debris still raining from the sky……"
To your #55: That HC-130 is a check off bird designed to take on all comers for fuel, choppers included. Any H-53's can do as well. Respectfully, Sword
Warning Area 106, very close to the crash site of TWA 800, then, was being utilized at the time of the explosion by at least one HC-130 and one HH-60. …..This actual situation represents a very odd set of circumstances: in a Warning Area (W-106) NOT activated, military fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft were training and practicing search patterns, parachute jumps, and recovery of parajumpers....yet, according to the Navy, in the Warning Areas that WERE specifically activated, absolutely NO training, practice, or exercises of any kinds were taking place!
The author in the above 1997 article said the TWA800 crash was very close to W-106, but just looking at the pictures it seems to me most or all of them were in there!
It might go a long way to explain why so many boats were North of W-105at the time...
http://www.multipull.com/twacasefile/dockers.html I don't know if you've seen this but it might be of interest. It has some good photos of the view and area near by.
Guns using blast fragmentation as well, we got an explosive expansion of metalic particles on radar as proof. We need a test, anybody got friends in an ordinance battalion, division, group, etc, who could help us - we need proof! A good scientific experiment on radar, using a control, of course, and we may be able to say that plane was bagged by some decent professional work - not being negative, just stating a fact. Respectfully, Sword.
Our shooters, had to be two of them, were running perpendicular to the rest of the water traffic in the area. The graphic showing the ISLIP radar plot indicates that one shooter was on the starboard side if flight 800 whereas the other was on the port. The weapon that hit the starbord side penetrated, the weapon on the port side detonated in an attempt to "catch" up with the intended target. This round caused substantial damage, most likely both rounds were fired simultaneously by both ships while both ships engaged with guns. Watch the ships line of travel in relation to the "flotilla". Then watch them rendezvouz with the rest of the "flotilla" from the left side of the graphic, don't have a "nomend" indicating northerly direction. That plane went through a meat grinder. Respectfully, Sword
The Michael blips would have been in flight instead of on impact so I assume the "explosive expansion" phrase in #66 refers to the damage picked up on radar after the initiating event shown on the twa800 composite graph. If I’m wrong about this, please correct me!
The only way I can see right now to get the raw data for your calculations is to email Tom Stalcup (firstname.lastname@example.org) or NTSB directly. It would probably take much longer to get it from NTSB.
This url from the research site explains why http://flight800.org/flotilla.htm
"….The identity of the closest surface vessel has allegedly not been determined by the government investigators into the F800 tragedy. As for the remaining three closest vessels, their identities have been determined, but not publicly released. And although their behavior was captured on RADAR, the raw RADAR data is not publicly available. However, NTSB sources have released some of this raw RADAR data to independent researchers, seeking to answer the above questions. …."
About Tom Stalcup from http://airtravel.about.com/travel/airtravel/library/weekly/aa051099.htm?pid=4537&cob=home
…Tom Stalcup is one of those people that believes there's much more to the TWA 800 disaster than mechanical failure. Stalcup is a researcher at the Magnetics Lab at Florida State University. He is the representing the Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization, an ad hoc group of over 35 citizens with diverse areas of technical expertise that formed more than a year ago in response to perceived problems in the official investigation. ….
Please check this out for a candidate for our 475 knot aircraft: http://www.multipull.com/twacasefile/dockers.html
FBI statement on the candidate (I chuckled when I read their reason about why it was not a drone!:) http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/nyfo/pressrels/1997/1118twa.htm
The photo taken by Kabot depicts a bearing of north/northeast. TWA Flight 800 was south/southwest almost directly behind her. Photograph analyzed by CIA National Imagery and Mapping Administration (NIMA) advised that
1. THERE IS OBJECT IN PHOTO
2. OBJECT IS NOT A MISSILE
3. OBJECT APPEARS TO BE AN AIRCRAFT
Not possible to ID aircraft because:
- Not possible to determine distance of object from camera.
- Exact time of photo unknown.
(time frame only is known)
- Insufficient detail in photo to determine type of aircraft.
4. OBJECT IS NOT A DRONE
- No drone exercises conducted near Long Island July 17, 1996
From a conspiracy theory that the drone was a missile that actually penetrated the aircraft: http://www.sightings.com/ufo/twaexpose.htm
From the debunking site at http://ftp.xmission.com/~lawall/twa.html
The Michael blips would have been in flight instead of on impact so I assume the "explosive expansion" phrase in #66 refers to the damage picked up on radar after the initiating event shown on the twa800 composite graph. If I’m wrong about this, please correct me! What I'm saying here is the blast fragmentation rounds used from 76mm, 114mm, or 127mm were visible at this stage due to the reflective capacity of the metal cubes as they disperse from the projectiles point of detonation. To me that would explain a lot of the damage to the underbelly of the aircraft. Small pieces of metal coming from the aircraft would have been over shadowed by the aircrafts return radar signature. I'm also saying there is a possibility the tapes recorded a round at detonation, and there is mention of "ejecta" in the written reports by the NTSB and FBI, but no justification due to an exploding fuel tank. ….Respectfully, Sword
Mind if I park this here. You might find it interesting also.Marine Industry Links A timeline by Aviation- Safety.net.
Here are the newspapers I’ve found so far in the Norfolk, Hampton Roads area. It seemed to me that foreign military vessels would not be docked alongside commercial shipping vessels and therefore this seemed to be a prime port possibility for foreign military vessels needing fuel, close to the TWA800 crash.
Norfolk, VA 23502
Navy Newspapers Jet Observer
2509 Walmer Avenue, Norfolk, VA 23513
http://www.pilotonline.com/ (I searched the archives for 1996 and couldn’t find anything)
http://www.haruth.com/DM_V.htm (a list of Virginia newspapers)
A focus to the time line in your #77: Check this out! - September 5, 1997 Impact damage was found on TWA 800 nosegear doors. NTSB investigators have been trying to figure out what could have caused the nose gear doors to blow inward -- and whether whatever caused that damage happened before the plane's center fuel tank exploded. Energy being exhibited outside the aircraft prior to water impact - explosive detonation. It would take some serious energy to do this. That is why I am still hanging on to the belief that a naval gun, or naval guns, were used in conjunction with a missile attack on a possible drone contact that was mixed up with TWA800. During heavy ECM propogation by American National Air Guard C-130's, the foreign ship could not get an IFF/UHF read from the target and TWA800. In the mix, the target an airliner are misidentified, since no one is on the weather deck of the ship, and the sun is low in the sky, the Weapons boss goes off of a solid radar fix on a possible hostile. The CO believes he is in W-105, or just on near the perimeter of W-106/107. Since an exercise has been authorized, the foreign ship(S) go weapons free and nail the airliner. to them it was a good kill, and they put themselves back in the flotilla that was performaing ASW ops. Respectfully, Sword
My #81 puts it in a nutshell what happened. Now all we need is some shipping data for the New England and Tidewater areas, and we might nail this down. At least we could get a better look at prospective shooters. Who ever did the shooting had good equipment and were extremely mobile, most likely gas turbine with dual 10 round or single 21 round RAM launcher. Both shooters had good range and a good radar "lobe" of the target. Will look at the foreign contingent again for possibles. Respectfully, Sword
Correction to data: Will begin to upgrade data, and correction items that are DEFINATELY wrong on hypothesis that have been proved/disproved by Freeper input. At this point correct for Italian missile capability. This is listed in the foreign contingent, but yours truly goofed. Italians do not carry RAM, unless it is new acquisition. They carry Aspide - Specs: Aspide Mission: Medium Range Surface-to-Air Missile (very similar to Sea Sparrow) Development-Country-Name: Italy Deployment-Country-Name: Italy, Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Nigeria, Peru, Spain, Venezuela Development Year: 1969 Deployment Year: 1988 Retire Year: Length 3.70m Body Diameter 20.3cm Wingspan 1.0m Launch Weight 220kg Warhead 30kg HE fragmentation effect Guidance Semiactive radar Propulsion Solid Range 35km Accuracy No. of Manufacture No. of Deployment Unknown Contractor Alenia Defense Systems All EU ships listed in foreign contingent except Great Britain and Germany carry this. Great Britain carries their own system, Germany uses SM1-MR and RAM. This missile would have blasted TWA800 to pieces with one round. It has a 66+ pound HE Blast Fragmentation/Expanding Rod warhead. If the passengers had experienced this weapon, they would have looked like they went through a food processor. My bad. Respectfully, Sword
Additional data: RIM 67 variants - RIM-66/67 Standard 1/2 Mission: Ship-to-Air Area Defense Missile Development-Country-Name: USA Deployment-Country-Name: USA, other 12 countries Development Year: 1960s Deployment Year: 1968(1MR) Retire Year: SM-1MR SM-2MR SM-1ER/2ER SM-2ER BlockIV Length(m) 4.48 4.72 7.98 6.55 Body Diameter(m) 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 Wingspan(m) 1.06 1.06 1.57 1.57 Launch Weight(kg) 642.3 706.7 1,343.6/1,507.8 1,451.5 Warhead HE blast fragmentation effect HE blast fragmentation effect HE blast fragmentation effect HE blast fragmentation effect Guidance Command, SAR Command, inertia, SAR Command, inertia, SAR Command, inertia, SAR Propulsion Solid Solid Solid Solid Range(km) 38 70 64/120 150 Deployment Year 1968 1978 ?/1982 1997(?) No. of Manufacture About 20,000 Contractor Hughes Missile Systems Company RAM - BUSINESS WIRE February 22, 2000 Korea Selects Rolling Airframe Missile System for its KDX-II Destroyer Program TUCSON - Raytheon Company announced today that the Republic of Korea Navy has chosen the MK 31 Mod 1 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Guided Missile Weapon System for its new KDX-II destroyer program. RAM will provide the KDX II with the middle layer of its layered defense against anti-ship missiles. Raytheon's RAM was selected over two competing systems -- the Israeli Barak and the French Crotale VT-1 -- through a multi-stage competitive selection process. Korea is the third country to purchase the RAM weapon system, which is developed and produced cooperatively by the U.S. and Germany. Under a direct commercial sale contract, Raytheon is to deliver RAM Block 1, 21-round launcher systems beginning in 2001 and provide logistics, technical and integration services. The missiles will be procured at a later date under a separate contract. RAM is a lightweight, quick-reaction, ship-self defense missile and is presently deployed on more than 30 U.S. and 25 German ships. More than 60 additional U.S. and German installations are planned, to include amphibious classes, cruisers, destroyers, aircraft carriers and fast patrol boats, with further expansion into other allies' navies. RAM's dual mode (infrared and radio frequency), autonomous, passive seekers provide high firepower, since no shipboard support is required after launch. The new Block 1 version selected by Korea has recently completed its U.S. Navy operational test program and has received approval for full rate production. Respectfully, Sword
".......RAM is a lightweight, quick-reaction, ship-self defense missile and is presently deployed on more than 30 U.S. and 25 German ships. More than 60 additional U.S. and German installations are planned, to include amphibious classes, cruisers, destroyers, aircraft carriers and fast patrol boats, with further expansion into other allies' navies......"
Nearly all ships of the German Navy.
From the link in post 91 about the German Navy ships. Note: the site has not been updated since '98. Emphasis mine.
Destroyers (3) "Luetjens-class": [images: 44 k] replaced by the new F124 frigate class (about year 2000) homeport: Kiel tonnage: 4,720 t power: 51,500 kw (70,000 HP) speed: more than 30 knots crew: 327 ESM/ECM: Fl 1800 SII weapons 2 x 20 mm 2 x guns 127 mm Harpoon-missile (SSM) SM-1 (SAM) RAM (SAM) 6 x anti-sub torpedo tubes anti-sub missiles Asroc
Frigates (4) "Brandenburg-class": [images: 22 k, 787 k or zipped, 48k] plan(!) is: all ships ready until end of 1996 homeport: Wilhelmshaven tonnage: 4,500 t power: 38,000 kw (51,600 HP) speed: 29 knots crew: 237 (18 for the helicopters) weapons 1 x gun 76 mm 4 x Exocet MM 38 missiles (SSM) 16 Sea Sparrow (SAM) (VLS) 2 x 21 RAM (SAM) 4 x anti-sub torpedo tubes 2 Sea Lynx helicopters
Frigates (8) "Bremen-class": [imagesture: 55 k 16 k] homeport: Wilhelmshaven tonnage: 3,800 t power: 38,000 kw (51,600 HP) speed: more than 30 knots crew: 204 (18 for the helicopters) radars: DA-08 (EW), WM-25 (TT/NAV), SRM20A (NAV) ESM/ECM: Fl 1800 SI soon to be replaced by the much better Fl 1800 SII weapons 1 x gun 76 mm 8 x Harpoon missiles (SSM) 8 x Sea Sparrow (+ 8 for reloading) 2 x 21 RAM (SAM) 4 x anti-sub torpedo tubes 2 Sea Lynx helicopters
Fast Patrolboat (10)"Gepard-class": [images: 27 k, 28 k] newest Patroalboats (build in the 80's), wooden hull (anti magnetic ): homeport: 7th Squadron in Warnemünde tonnage: 390 t lenght: 57.5 m power: 11,700 kw (16,000 HP) speed: 40 knots crew: 35 weapons 1 x gun 76 mm 4 x Exocet MM 38 missiles (SSM) 21 RAM (SAM) Minelaying capability
Germany will keep Lütjens
-2 April 1997
The German Navy is to operate two of its three Lütjens class air defence destroyers until the first of the next-generation Type F 124 frigates enters service, possibly as late as 2005.
To your #95: Narrow it down to the fast shooters, that will make the field easier to work with. Ignore coastal patrol, possibly ignore, unless Ops were to practice Baltic or North Sea Ops. The problem I have with coastal patrol is range. The United States Navy had PHM's (hydrofoils) for a while, when it was realized most of patrol time was spent along side oiler the navy turned them over to the DoT for drug Ops. Navy then pulled Harpoon missile launchers off, and kepth the 76mm/62 OTO Malera. See where I'm getting at. Big fast platform: Corvette, Frigate, or Destroyer in ascending size, that order. A coastal patrol would be better used patrolling from various ports and used for close in support. In most cases their radars are not as significant as larger plan ships. Corvettes, Frigates, and Destroyers make good escort ships for long range convoys, and SAG (Surface Action Group) or CBG (Carrier Battle Group). Thought the differentiation was important - hope I'm right as far as shooter. Rspectfully, Sword.
The deeper you dig the deeper it gets. Amazing! I was fascinated when I started reading all this stuff when I was doing the military research. Everybody had it at the ends of their fingers, and they refused to look. The thing that's interesting is the mobility, envelope protection, and shear fire power all these ships have. No wonder the Iron curtain collapsed, to a point though. We realists still believe there is a threat considering all the secrets that the Clinton administration has sold - to every body. What a jerk. That man couldn't lead his way out of a wet paper bag with a seeing eye dog. Respectfully, Sword
I absolutely agree with you on that! It was unnerving to me that mentally visualizing all the graphics together was so easy and yet hadn't been done. I thought that surely I must be wrong, surely someone had seen this before.
Much of the fog lifted for me when I suddenly realized that Michael Rivero's radar images had no surface vessels on them at all and that the NTSB 475 knot aircraft was not mentioned or shown elsewhere.
And then you put it together, showing us how and why it would have all happened from the military point-of-view. The first indicator to me that we are on the right track to the truth is the ease with which all the pieces fall together!!!
I'm anxious to get the raw data now so we can do the math and confirm (or rebutt) this hypothesis, which I personally, very strongly believe is the truth!
From an article by Christopher Ruddy of Newsmax fame. Printed Oct. 22, 1998: Plane crashes were a favorite method of assassination with the Dixie Mafia, Rock said. He added that it was the "perfect cover for murder" because most of the evidence is destroyed or mutilated in a crash. Also, many people have an inability to accept the notion murderers would kill so many innocent passengers to get one target. So the death of the target appears purely accidental. Just thought more data would help for a good BUMP!!!!!
Interesting link to a site calledWarship1.com
Alink to a list of 50 German U Boat and Marine web sites with links. It's in German so a translator would help unless you read German. Bable Fish is working pretty good. Graphics from the Electronic Telegraph from 19 July 96 I believe.
From the same site, an article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, emphasis mine...
"...These documents have been brought to light by the Riverside Press-Enterprise, a California newspaper. It has drawn on the work of a retired pilot, Jim Sanders. His private research concludes that the Boeing was downed by a missile with an inert warhead. Mr Sanders has worked in parallel with Richard Russell, an aviation consultant in Florida, who obtained a copy of a radar tape from the Federal Aviation Administration apparently showing a small object travelling at 1,500mph to 2,000mph towards the 747.
The FBI has dismissed this. "The tape doesn't show anything like that. These people don't know what they're looking at," said Mr Kallstrom. The FBI raided Mr Russell's home last week and seized the tape.
There are interesting comments at thispage. Posts number 4,8,10,12,16,20,21,23 & 24 particularly. Number 12 and 24 are from family members of the victims and just sort of fans the flames for discovering the truth. The rest are technical comments.
BTW does anyone have any update on Jeremy Crocker, the man who was researching this back in '97? I see that he went missing in Oct '97 but don't see that he was ever found again. Just curious. His last radio show had some interesting comments on foriegn ships.
[see below for information on Jeremy Crocker]
I'm very curious about the Block Island airport being mentioned. We should probably figure out where that is, it might be important to Sword's calculations or the development of the graphics!!!
I did a quick check on it and the Block Island airport in Rhode Island - looks to me like it would be NNE of the Dockers location ... which would be right for where the cigar shaped object we suspect might be a target drone was photographed in the sky. It also looked to me like there is a nearby Coast Guard facility. Please let me know what you think ... my map skills are terrible (sigh!)
Here's a starter
"Part ofBlock Island's intrigue is that one must take a plane or boat to get here. The small inconvenience of transport to the Island is far outweighed by the secluded island atmosphere... Air Service: Block Island has an airport which can handle private and commuter size aircraft. Scheduled service from Westerly, RI is offered by New England Airlines, and air charter service from anywhere is offered by any of charter services listed below...Block Island Airport Block Island has a General Aviation Airport with a 2500 X 100 foot paved lighted runway (10-28). Approximately 20 tie downs are available. Grass parking is available for approximately 150 aircraft. No fuel or FBO services...VOR/DME (Sandy Point, SEY, 117.8) on field. IFR non precision approaches available (VOR 10, VOR 28, GPS 10, NDB10). Unicom 123.0 daylight
I thought this might come in handy.
"Panoramic View ofBlock Island From Beacon Hill, October 25, 1998 The photos were taken from the top of the Beacon Hill Tower, 225 feet above sea level. This page consists of four composite photos each about 4" X 18" and 100k in size... They may take a few minutes to load!"
Not knowing where he got the term block island I thoughtthis might be of interest,
or not. :-)
Yes it is very secluded. I'll see your hummmm and raise ya one.Mapquest link.
To your #142: A lot of this data was acquired after Lockerbie. In fact where the graphic shows the baggage compartment, the FBI and NTSB, during the Lockerbie probe, detonated several devices in various containers. This was a rodeo throw off done by the FBI and NTSB to make it look like possible terrorist activity. Respectfully, Sword
ur #143: This person heard something she can't explain. Following is the text from a portion of your link: #16 I realize that everyone has a theory, but please hear me out. I don't necessarily want to be right, but then it still won't bring back all those loved ones anyway. I just have one nagging thought that has stuck with me since the night the news flash came over concerning TWA 800. I have tried to find a place to post my theory, not to be so much heard, but considered. The witnesses (as best as I recall) all seemed to say the same basic thing. """ I heard a loud thunderous boom, like pyrotechnics, fire works, thunder, etc.. and I looked up and saw a giant fireball flash in the sky."""""" and it goes on from there. Does anybody see a problem here, or did I miss something,? She could have heard guns being fired. Good work! Respectively, Sword
Has anyone determined her range from the point at which the fireball occurred?
I don't know how long the fireball would last but if she heard the sound first she very well could have heard the gunfire instead of the explosion from the plane.
Sound takes a little while to travel and if the range was great enough and the fireball duration short enough she wouldn't have been able to hear the explosion and then see the fireball as it may have already been exhausted. Somewhat like watching distant fireworks, by the time you hear the boom, the firework is already gone.
Sound travels at 760 mph or 1114.67 fps at sea level. When watching lightning do this: count one one thousand, or one mississippi to those of you south of the Mason-Dixon line. Divide by ten. That number is roughly x.x miles. When one talks about fireworks, or pyrotechnics, one is discussing more than one "pop" or "bang". We may want to find out who she was discussing, or who she was based on what she is implying. This could be a break. Respectfully, Sword
Hmmmm... Seems we have arrived at two of the same points in this research: Jeremy Crocker's looking at the foreign fleet and the launching of a target drone (Block Island airport.) Very interesting!
TWA800 Research & Background
ALPA - Airline Pilots Association 7/26/00 Freeper report "…..The Airline Pilots Association has issued a scathing report on key areas of the NTSB handling of the TWA 800 investigation. While the document hasn't been officially released, a .pdf copy is available at http://twa800.webjump.com…Here is a quote cited at the website: ...the sound spectrum group has never met to review or discuss any of the testing that was conducted. The valuable data that was collected during those tests has never been published, nor has there been any group or party opportunity to analyze the CVR from TWA800 in the light of the work that was done. Furthermore, the NTSB has not made the analysis of a third party's study on this subject available to investigators or the public……..This is an extraordinary accusation by ALPA that once again calls into question the integrity of the official investigation. Detailed sound spectrum analysis is an established tool that can provide invaluable information as to the nature of an explosion. Sophisticated techniques developed from PA103 and other aviation accidents can allow investigators to determine from CVR recordings whether an explosion was a high explosive detonation or a low-order deflagration, such as the fuel-air explosion hypothesized by the NTSB. ………Despite the critical importance of this aspect of the investigation ALPA is in no uncertain terms stating that at best the NTSB has kept all of this data secret. The failure of the mainstream press to give even cursory coverage to this sort of development in the TWA 800 investigation is shameful. ….."http://start.at/twaflight800+http://start.at/twaflight800 Freeper amom "….. There are interesting comments at this page. Posts number 4,8,10,12,16,20,21,23 & 24 particularly. Number 12 and 24 are from family members of the victims and just sort of fans the flames for discovering the truth. The rest are technical comments. ……"
Newsday.com 7/17/00 G Stephen Bierman AP "……On the fourth anniversary of the crash of TWA Flight 800, two witnesses criticized investigators Monday for doing too little to determine the source of a light they say they saw in the sky near the doomed plane. They speculated the light might have been a missile....... Investigators of the wreckage have found no evidence that a missile struck the plane, National Transportation and Safety Board spokesman Paul Schlamm told The Associated Press. The board, expected to pronounce its findings next month, has focused on mechanical malfunction in the Boeing 747's center fuel tanks as the cause of the explosion that brought it down. ……."
Newsday.com 7/17/00 G Stephen Bierman AP "……Tom Stalcup, chairman of a group called the Flight 800 Independent Researchers, said 260 eyewitnesses told the FBI that they saw a light in the sky before the crash. Of them, 96 said they saw it originate from the surface. ….."
Commander W. S. Donaldson 7/17/00 Press Conference "……During this 48-month period, virtually the entire second term of the Clinton administration, the political leadership in both the Justice Department and the National Transportation Safety Board have taken aggressive and sometimes illegal proactive steps to ensure the American people remain ignorant of the cause of the loss of this aircraft with 230 souls aboard. …… With the willing cooperation of the nation's major media, the administration has been successful in making a majority of citizens believe one of the world's safest aircraft blew itself up on a routine flight to Paris. ………Even more remarkable, these modern day alchemists say this unique aviation event was caused by the ignition of non volatile kerosene in an empty center wing tank that their own flight tests show was non flammable much less explosive at the altitude the aircraft broke up. …….To further compound insult to the intellect of aviation experts, they are insisting the source of ignition was caused by some undiscovered design flaw of which there is not one iota of physical evidence:
Commander W. S. Donaldson 7/17/00 Press Conference "…… 755 witnesses, most of which saw supersonic streaks of light and one of which described a missile impact on the aircraft wing root were ignored. ……….FBI and Suffolk county marine police memorandum from their most qualified agents in the field, that specified the precise offshore launch point of two missiles were ignored. ………Radar evidence of a left to right missile impact through the aircraft and the establishment of a separate missile debris field publicly predicted by myself and privately predicted to the FBI by U.S. air force missile experts was ignored. …….A department of defense report done by U.S. navy missile experts requesting shoulder fired weapons be fired at 747 wing root fuel tanks was ignored. ……..The Ram hydraulic over pressure of the entire left wing tank system was ignored. …….The explosion and total destruction of the left wing root fuel tank [#2 main, which was also the initiating event] was ignored. ……The failure and separation of the entire left wing at its strongest point [the wing Root] was ignored. ……None of the appropriate metal testing to determine which fuel tank exploded first has been done. ……"
Philadelphia Inquirer 7/19/00 Scott Holleran "…….Such distrust has turned reasonable people into conspiracy theorists. Producing eyewitnesses and experts who claim a missile shot down TWA Flight 800 in 1996, a citizen research group announced yesterday that it was suing the FBI and the National Transportation and Safety Board to obtain information still being withheld four years after the worst aviation disaster in U.S. history. The organization's membership is composed of university researchers, engineers, technical, military and aviation professionals. ...... Perhaps the strongest reason distrust of government is still alive and well is this: The assault against individual rights is real. ……"
Electronic Telegraph 7/19/96 Freeper amomhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/96/7/19/twa.gif Ambrose Evans-Pritchard "...These documents have been brought to light by the Riverside Press-Enterprise, a California newspaper. It has drawn on the work of a retired pilot, Jim Sanders. His private research concludes that the Boeing was downed by a missile with an inert warhead. Mr Sanders has worked in parallel with Richard Russell, an aviation consultant in Florida, who obtained a copy of a radar tape from the Federal Aviation Administration apparently showing a small object travelling at 1,500mph to 2,000mph towards the 747. The FBI has dismissed this. "The tape doesn't show anything like that. These people don't know what they're looking at," said Mr Kallstrom. The FBI raided Mr Russell's home last week and seized the tape. …."
Biztravel 7/20/00 Joe Brancatelli "…… A day after the downing of TWA 800 four years ago this week, an executive of an international airline invited me to lunch……. "What's your take on TWA 800?" he asked before I could settle in. The question stunned me. …… "It was a missile," the executive said evenly. "Friendly fire. We kept telling the military this would happen one day. And the bastards just kept doing it and doing it. And now hundreds of people are dead." …… I didn't say anything. We didn't even have water on the table yet and here was this wild accusation from an airline guy I considered Mr. Button Down. I took a quick mental inventory of what I knew about him: he was former military, his son was a pilot, and we'd had a brief conversation a couple of months back, when one of his airline's planes was chased by two military fighter jets across the North Pacific. ……… Grimly, the executive laid out his theory: TWA 800 took off, was picked up on radar by U.S. fighters, and then made the "target" by a giddy pilot. As so often happens, this military pilot was playing an ad hoc war game: lock onto a commercial jet, make believe it is an enemy plane, then blow it out of the sky. Only this time, the executive insisted, something went terribly wrong and the game turned real. ……. Over the course of this very peculiar lunch, the airline executive also laid out several eerie scenarios: watch the government attempt to discredit, then ignore, then awkwardly explain away the eyewitness accounts that support the "missile theory." Watch the President make an unprecedented gesture to the families of the TWA 800 victims. Watch how the cockpit recorders will reveal no signs of crew comments indicating mechanical failure. Watch how a mechanical problem will be vaguely blamed, yet no 747s will be grounded.
Biztravel 7/20/00 Joe Brancatelli "…… Most of all, he said, "Watch the players." ….."Well," I said, "The National Transportation Safety Board, except if..." …… "Except if there is criminal activity involved and then the FBI is in the mix." "So, what's the point?" ……. "Like I said, watch the players. Forget about what they say and what they do. Eventually, they will tell you its not a bomb, it not a missile, it's a mechanical. But watch how the FBI doesn't go away. If it is a mechanical, the FBI has no legal authority to be anywhere near the NTSB. But watch how the FBI will never go away." ……. "
'Friendly fire' theory denied in TWA crash David Sapsted Julian Nundy "…..CLAIMS by Pierre Salinger, former press secretary to President Kennedy, that he had documentary proof TWA Flight 800 was brought down by a US Navy missile were dismissed by the Navy and FBI yesterday. …….. The cover-up claim was described as "outrageous" by James Kallstrom, the assistant director of the FBI, who is heading the criminal investigation into the crash. He described the theory as "total nonsense". Mr Salinger said he decided to go public after an article and photograph examining the missile theory in Paris Match last week was ignored by the media. The photograph showed a cigar-shaped streak of light flashing across the night sky off Long Island on July 17, but an examination of the picture by Associated Press has indicated it was taken by someone facing north, away from the crash site. ……. "
FBI blasts a hole in TWA disaster inquiry Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Washington "……..An internal memo from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), dated November 15, complains that sensitive radar tapes were given to the White House before they were provided to crash investigators. According to the document, the radar data indicated that a missile was converging on the Boeing 747 seconds before the aircraft broke up off the coast of Long Island, killing 230 people. Why on earth were these tapes given to the White House first? And why did the White House immediately try to quash speculation that a missile was involved? ……….. The document goes on to say the NTSB was not allowed to take notes when it was shown witness statements prepared by the FBI - which admits that 34 people deemed "credible" said they saw a missile heading for the plane. ……… The FBI's preferred theory in public is that vapours set off an explosion in a central fuel tank. But an NTSB document in January said the first parts of the aircraft to fall into the sea were a section of seats from rows 17 to 19. These were closest to the "initial event" of the crash. The front of the jet then plunged into the water, while the rest of the aircraft continued gliding for several thousand feet. The fuel tank was found 12,000 feet beyond the original debris. The report concluded that the fuel tank caught fire late in the sequence. ......... These documents have been brought to light by the Riverside Press-Enterprise, a California newspaper. It has drawn on the work of a retired pilot, Jim Sanders. His private research concludes that the Boeing was downed by a missile with an inert warhead. Mr Sanders has worked in parallel with Richard Russell, an aviation consultant in Florida, who obtained a copy of a radar tape from the Federal Aviation Administration apparently showing a small object travelling at 1,500mph to 2,000mph towards the 747. The FBI has dismissed this. "The tape doesn't show anything like that. These people don't know what they're looking at," said Mr Kallstrom. The FBI raided Mr Russell's home last week and seized the tape. ……"
10/28/97 THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE (10/28/1997) Mark Henry Palm Springs "...... The disappearance of civic watchdog Jeremy Crocker while researching the crash of TWA Flight 800 last year has left his two sons baffled and searching for any sign that their father is still alive......... Crocker, a longtime Palm Springs resident whose father built the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway, was last seen Dec. 9 at the downtown Los Angeles library where he did much of his research on the crash........ His preoccupation with the airline crash included countless hours of research in libraries and on the Internet. He did not trust the government's probes of the crash and believed a projectile knocked the airliner from the skies. He created mathematical models and studied the aerodynamics of the crash and similarities to other air disasters worldwide........"
The Winds ".......Crocker's work had come to the notice of Peter Ford, a Los Angeles radio host. Just five days before his disappearance, he had been a guest on Ford's program where the subject was TWA 800. Ford indicated that Jeremy Crocker was "abso- lutely convinced that there was a lot of foul play involved" in the downing of TWA Flight 800. Continuing his research on December 9, 1996, Crocker traveled to Los Angeles where he put some of his current findings into an envelope and mailed them to Ford. That was the last anyone has heard from Jeremy Crocker. ..." (Hard Copy, November 27,1997).
Ian Goddard "......Not only is the evidence of a missile hit being disappeared, but a human being who was gathering evidence of a missile hit also disappeared.  Jeremy Crocker spoke on KIEV radio about TWA 800 five days before he disappeared, back in December 1996. Before he disappeared, he sent a graphic that he made to fellow researcher Tom Shoemaker that suggests he may have acquired in- side evidence that something (a drone?) was launched from the Block Island airport (drones are usually launched from land)......"
Los Angeles Police Department
Circumstances: Jeremy was last seen at the Los Angeles Central Library, downtown Los Angeles.
Any Information Contact:
Los Angeles Police Department
Detective Headquarters Division/Missing Persons Unit
150 N. Los Angeles St.
Los Angeles, California 90012
Fax# 213-485-6625 (24 Hours)
Konformist Bits: 13 January 1998 Part II
…..Date: Saturday, January 3, 1998 5:41:13 PM From: email@example.com Subj: JEREMY CROCKER'S LAST WORDS
I just acquired a tape of Jeremy Crocker, the disappeared TWA Flight 800 researcher and missile theorist, speaking on the Peter Ford Show (12/04/96) just five days before he disappeared. Crocker's family believes that there may be a connection with his disappearance and his focused research into the crash of TWA 800. …….
Listening to Jeremy Crocker I hear a man who is calm and collected, mild mannered, objective, and intelligent. It is clear that he is a careful thinker who does not make wild off-the-cuff truth claims. He believed that TWA 800 was shot down with a missile, but never states directly whose missile he thinks it was. I get the feeling from that that he had not made up his mind exactly who fired the missile. He does say that he thinks it was not a small missile and that in the effort to discover the truth, contacts in the military are needed.
I do not type fast, so transcribing from tape is a pain- fully slow process for me. I have therefore not taken the time to transcribe everything said and the only speaker I've transcribed is Crocker. The portions of Crocker I've not transcribed had to do with the crash of KAL 007 and some minor chit-chat with a few callers. Nothing from that untranscribed discourse leads to any insights into his TWA 800 research. Some sentences may not read right, but I've transcribed them as they were spoken. ===================================================== LAST PUBLIC WORDS OF JEREMY CROCKER ================
These are some of the last publicly stated words of disappeared TWA Flight 800 researcher Jeremy Crocker speaking on the Peter Ford Show, KIEV Radio 12/4/96:
JEREMY CROCKER: I contribute to KIEV my presence here because it was questions on the Ray Bream show and others and particularly his guests such as Captain Richard Russell who brought out the questions that I've spent several months trying to answer.
PETER FORD reads from Ron Lewis's Air Forces Monthly report, citing the terrorist fax.
JEREMY CROCKER: I think I could add something on that. The London Telegraph covered some of that activity in the Middle East particularly because some terrorist camps had been established around Tehran and were seen from U.S. satellites, and it looked like the U.S. was going to have a pretext there for an attack on Iran at that time. I would guess that they did not have the evidence to show that Iran was at the root of the TWA crash is the reason for not doing it.
PETER FORD speaks about Nov 18 report of streaks of light seen by Pakistani pilots off Long Island.
JEREMY CROCKER: Yes, on that one Peter keep in mind on the Ray Bream Show earlier in the week had an expert in the field, Captain Richard Russell. And I have been privy to something that came by another airline captain, a flight going from FLL, which is probably a Florida origin, to BOS, which is Boston, was headed for Providence at 33,000 feet and was crossing over the course of the Pakistani airliner at the time it made that report, so you have two credible sources.
CALLER says he thinks TWA 800 investigation is a coverup, citing FBI and NTSB relations.
JEREMY CROCKER: Well I think particularly the 23 of the month, I forgot which month, maybe it was August, quite an analysis by Joe Sexton in the New York Times in which he analyzed the interior of the investigation and it supports your conclusion that there's something fishy there with the way the organization is constructed.
PETER FORD speaks about the shows plan.
JEREMY CROCKER: Could I speak to that and sort of sketch out the picture which we have and also the places were there are holes and invite listeners to fill those holes?
First we'll talk about the things that did not bring down the airliner, contrary to what you may have heard from the frequent press conferences at Calverton Long Island. It wasn't a bomb, it wasn't a bomb for several reasons. Not only were there no appreciable amounts of explosives recovered, and you heard from Rodney [Stich] that it takes a couple hundred pounds to take the nose off a plane that has a 20 foot diameter fuselage and has to fly at Mach .86 and all the forces that that requires. So that we can throw out.
Then secondly it wasn't the fuel tank, which had no fuel in it, it never has fuel when crossing the Atlantic, it has a center fuel tank for trans-pacific flights only.
So then we come down to a missile. It wasn't a small missile because small missiles go right through planes. And there's an Aviation Week study which shows some 25 airliners have been hit by missiles over a period between 1978 I think through '94. So we need to have people who have contacts in military, in aviation, and particularly, as we'll talk about a little later, in foreign countries; there's been some interesting things that have happened in the way of cover-ups in Italy and Korea indirectly.
……PETER FORD reads a Jerusalem Post report on French Intelligence sources who say it must have been a U.S. military missile and the U.S. will never admit it.
CROCKER: If I could interject something, you mentioned the French, and the French have been quite helpful on this, because they have quite a few people that have been victims of the TWA crash. The quote that you gave us from the Jerusalem Post originated with French sources, and we can look overseas for perhaps an investigation that is not clouded by U.S. interests.
PETER FORD talks. Presents closing question: Is there any hope to sleuthing this thing out, or where is this all this going?
CROCKER: I have great faith in thinking Americans and in thinking people of Europe in particular because these are people I've heard from [ words I can't decipher ], and people also in Britain who do understand these things probably with a subtlety we don't, that governments lie and people have to figure it out despite their lies.
== END OF CROCKER INTERVIEW ========================= ......
THE DARK SIDE
A recent airing of TV's Hard Copy discussed the mysterious disappearance of Jeremy Crocker, a "renowned engineer" who had become obsessed with the TWA explosion. Crocker, a Palm Springs resident, had become convinced, after much research, that the government was hiding the truth and he was determined to find it.
Crocker's son Jonathan said his father was "somewhat of a crusader. He wanted people to be accountable and honest and he felt that wasn't happening. He was willing to dig for evidence that might point fingers."
Crocker's work had come to the notice of Peter Ford, a Los Angeles radio host. Just five days before his disappearance, he had been a guest on Ford's program where the subject was TWA 800. Ford indicated that Jeremy Crocker was "absolutely convinced that there was a lot of foul play involved" in the downing of TWA Flight 800.
Continuing his research on December 9, 1996, Crocker traveled to Los Angeles where he put some of his current findings into an envelope and mailed them to Ford. That was the last anyone has heard from Jeremy Crocker. "The dark side theory would be that he was taken out. That someone, somewhere felt he was a threat", said Ford. The Crocker family is still searching, but police have never found a trace. They say he simply vanished. (Hard Copy, November 27,1997).
Gore – TWA800
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued April 22, 1999 Decided June 18, 1999
M. Victoria Cummock, Appellant
Albert Gore, Jr., et al.,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 97cv00981)
Herbert L. Fenster argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Michael J. Haungs and Todd A. Suko. Michael S. Raab, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Wilma A. Lewis, U.S. Attorney, Mark B. Stern, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Nancy E. cFadden, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, Paul M. Geier, Assistant General Counsel, and Peter J. Plocki, Senior Trial Attorney.
Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Wald and Rogers, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Edwards.
Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge Rogers…..
FACA is not new legislation, having been enacted more than a quarter of a century ago. There has been considerable litigation over the statute's meaning, so there is a wealth of case law to guide us in this case. For example, in recent years, this court has considered and decided whether a given group constitutes an advisory committee for the purposes of FACA, see, e.g., Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. v. Gaus, 61 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 1995), when a member of the public has standing to sue under FACA, see, e.g., Byrd v. EPA, No. 98-5180, 1999 WL 252643 (D.C. Cir. April 30, 1999), and what are the appropriate remedies for violations of FACA, see, e.g., California Forestry Ass'n v. United States Forest Serv., 102 F.3d 609 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Although the instant case presents a unique factual scenario, it is clear that the issues posed here are readily resolved by reference to the terms of the statute, the supporting legislative history, and well established precedent.
The Government seeks to cast Cummock as essentially a disgruntled Commission member, who failed to convince her fellow Commissioners of her view and then pursued this lawsuit as an alternative avenue of recourse. The District Court agreed with the Government that Cummock had no valid legal claims and dismissed Cummock's complaint in its entirety. Our review of the District Court's ruling is de novo, see Systems Council EM-3 v. AT&T, 159 F.3d 1376, 1378 (D.C. Cir. 1998). We reject the Government's self-serving characterizations. In point of fact, Cummock has raised a viable claim under FACA and her lawsuit was improperly dismissed. Accordingly, we reverse.
Our first task is to explain what is truly at issue here. In the District Court, Cummock alleged a slew of FACA violations and sought a broad range of injunctive and declaratory relief. It is apparent on appeal, however, that Cummock's position turns principally on her lack of access to information relied upon by the Commission, and her concomitant inability to prepare an informed dissent. To be sure, Cummock continues to argue--at least in her briefs--that the Commission violated FACA's charter and notice provisions, as well as the APA. See Brief of Appellant at 17-20, 35-37. However, she has also made it quite clear that "[s]he does not seek to enjoin use of the report, but only a declaration that FACA was violated, and an opportunity to obtain relevant information and to modify, correct, and publish her complete dissent." Reply Brief of Appellant at 16. In other words, she seeks relief solely in connection with her claim under 10(b)
Cummock's counsel conceded as much at oral argument, stating that what Cummock desires, in a nutshell, is the opportunity to obtain and review all documents relied upon by the Commission in formulating its recommendations, and to amend her dissent if necessary to ensure a complete and fully informed expression of her objections. Under these circumstances, we find that the only claim before us warranting our attention is Cummock's assertion that the Commission denied her access to relevant documents, and thereby thwarted her dissenting voice. Cummock's claim is rooted in 10(b) of FACA, which provides as follows:
Subject to [FOIA], the records, reports, transcripts, minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda, or other documents which were made available to or prepared for or by each advisory committee shall be available for public inspection and copying at a single location in the offices of the advisory committee or the agency to which the advisory committee reports until the advisory committee ceases to exist.
This provision "affirmatively obligates the Government to provide access to the identified materials." Food Chem. News, 980 F.2d at 1472. In other words, the Government must make such materials available for public inspection and copying, even in the absence of a particular request, unless "the agency reasonably claims [the materials] to be exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIA." Id. at 1469. According to Cummock, the Commission violated 10(b) by failing to make the required information available to her, even when she specifically requested it in connection with her work on the Commission. She identifies particular documents to which she was allegedly entitled (i.e., the inch-thick briefing paper, the ATA correspondence, the classified annex, and the information on protective breathing equipment), adding that
she "is unable at this point to say how much she has not seen." Brief of Appellant at 22. Cummock argues, in short, that the Commission's FACA violations interfered with her right and responsibility to participate in its deliberations, and compromised her ability to prepare a fully informed dissent.
Before proceeding to the merits of Cummock's claim, we must confirm our jurisdiction to hear this dispute. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 118 S. Ct. 1003, 1010 (1998). In particular, we must assure ourselves of Cummock's standing to sue for a violation of FACA based on the Commission's failure to supply her with the information required under the Act. The constitutional standing requirements are familiar: Cummock must show that she has suffered a particularized injury to a cognizable interest, her injury is fairly traceable to the Government's actions, and a favorable judicial ruling will likely redress her injury. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).
Cummock readily satisfies the standing requirements in this case. First, she suffered an injury under FACA insofar as the Commission denied her requests for information that it was required to produce. See Public Citizen, 491 U.S. at 449; Byrd, 1999 WL 252643, at *3. Second, her injury was directly caused by the Commission's alleged violation of FACA. Finally, her injury is redressable by the relief she seeks--namely, access to documents to which she is entitled under FACA and an opportunity to amend her dissent to
reflect any changes stemming from a review of those materials. See NRDC, 147 F.3d at 1023 ("[T]he appellees plainly have standing to request injunctive relief directing the [agency] to make Committee documents and records available to the full extent permitted by FACA....").
We turn next to the question of whether Cummock possesses an enforceable right under FACA. In the Government's view, Cummock possesses no cause of action here. The Government contends that it does not matter that Cummock was a Commission member, because her claim of entitlement to documents represents merely an "internal dispute[ ] among committee members," for which there are no meaningful
standards to guide judicial review. Brief for the Appellees at 15. Thus, the Government argues that Cummock, like any member of the public, had only a limited right, while the Commission was in existence, to obtain information pursuant to 10(b) of FACA. According to the Government, even during the course of Commission deliberations, Cummock had no right under FACA to obtain documents that were exempt from public disclosure under FOIA. Furthermore, because the Commission no longer exists, the Government asserts that Cummock must seek Commission documents via a properly filed FOIA request, which the Government "stands ready to process." Brief for the Appellees at 20. Under this scenario, if the Government refuses to release certain information, Cummock would then be required to file suit under
FOIA, challenging that decision.
In short, the Government would have us adopt the broad principle that a duly appointed advisory committee member, who has all necessary security clearances, has no rights beyond those enjoyed by the public-at-large. Under this view--from which Government counsel stubbornly refused to budge at oral argument--advisory committee membership accords no real right to participate in committee proceedings. Indeed, counsel went so far as to suggest that the Government could, without violating FACA, appoint an individual to an advisory committee and then wall that individual off from the committee's operations, rendering membership essentially meaningless. The Government's position is rather astonishing, and we reject it. It would be quite absurd for us to hold that a FACA advisory committee--a public deliberative body that is subject to precise statutory mandates designed to ensure openness and fair deliberations--may simply exclude unpopular viewpoints from participation. Yet, according to the Government, this outcome is reasonable, because Congress, in drafting FACA, said nothing about committee members obtaining rights of access beyond those of the public. We are told that sanctions short of judicial review will flow to committees that operate to exclude particular members: an unhappy member can refuse to sign the committee's report, and FACA's sunshine provisions will ensure that such irregularities are exposed to the public. In the Government's opinion, however, appointed committee members possess no particular rights of participation, and may even be denied access to information underscoring the committee's recommendations.
We flatly reject the Government's view, for it is simply untenable in light of the stated purposes of FACA. In passing this legislation, Congress emphasized the need "to ensure that persons or groups directly affected by the work of a particular advisory committee would have some representation on the committee," National Anti-Hunger Coalition, 711 F.2d at 1074 n.2, and to protect against "the risk that governmental officials would be unduly influenced by industry leaders," Public Citizen v. National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, 886 F.2d 419, 437 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (Edwards, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also Cargill, Inc. v. United States, No. 97-31190, 1999 WL 225205, at *2 (5th Cir. April 19, 1999) ("FACA is designed to ensure that advisory committees are fairly constituted and properly monitored so that they will provide sound advice."). These concerns were expressly embodied in the provisions of FACA requiring that committee membership be fairly balanced in terms of viewpoints and functions, and that committees exercise independent judgment free from improper influences. See 5 U.S.C. app. 2 5(b)(2), (3). Yet, an interpretation of FACA that permitted a given advisory committee to exclude a disfavored member would fly in the face of the principle established by these requirements: a committee might be nominally balanced, because an individual was appointed to represent certain views, but effectively unbalanced, because that individual was precluded from meaningful participation. Moreover, contrary to the Government's assertions at oral argument, FACA's sunshine provisions, while a
central feature of the Act, are not a substitute for the Act's provisions requiring balance and independence.
In Food Chemical News, we found that, in order to give meaning to FACA's sunshine provisions, 10(b) must be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the Government to, "whenever practicable, [provide] access to the relevant materials before or at the meeting at which the materials are used and discussed." 980 F.2d at 1472. Likewise, in order to give meaning to FACA's fair balance and independent judgment provisions, the Act must be read to confer on a committee member the right to fully participate in the work of the committee to which he or she is appointed. Any other reading would nullify Congress's express intent.
We find the Government's position somewhat disingenuous, moreover, as committee membership is manifestly not meaningless in the "real world" of Washington policy making. Appointment to an advisory body is often coveted and highly esteemed, and the benefits flow both ways: while the individ- ual member gains "recognition and even prestige," the Government obtains valuable advice and political legitimacy with respect to its policy decisions. Association of Amer. Phys cians and Surgeons, Inc. v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898, 914 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see also Jay S. Bybee, Advising the President: Separation of Powers and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 104 Yale L.J. 51, 58-59 (1994) ("The government ... uses advisory committees to legitimize agency viewpoints.
An agency decisionmaker may have reached a tentative or even a firm conclusion about a particular matter, and may look to an advisory committee to validate that conclusion. Politically, the agency's decision will not be salable without some outside, 'neutral' support.") (footnote omitted); id. at 59 ("[P]residential advisory committees may serve purely political ends, as vehicles for communicating with Congress and
the people, building support for proposals, or masking the government's unwillingness to act."). Thus, we have observed that: When the executive branch endorses [a committee's] advice and seeks to promote the policy course suggested by the committee, the executive branch draws upon the committee's political legitimacy. Congress' effort to ensure that these committees are balanced in terms of viewpoint recognizes their usefulness for political (and patronage) purposes. Association of Amer. Physicians and Surgeons, 997 F.2d at 914. Given these realities, it is apparent that committee membership bestows both rights and obligations beyond those given to members of the general public. In any event, the Government does not dispute that committee members have at least the same rights under FACA as the public. Although we disagree with the Government's position that the rights of a committee member extend no further than the rights of a non-member, even taking only this limited view, the Government's concession is significant.
Because there is no question under our precedent that members of the public possess enforceable rights to obtain information under FACA, see Food Chem. News, 980 F.2d at 1472, it follows a fortiori that committee members have at least these same rights. And we have also made it clear that FACA rights are enforceable even after an advisory committee has been disbanded. See, e.g., Byrd, 1999 WL 252643, at
*4 (rejecting argument that plaintiff's injury was not redressable where panel had already completed its work and been disbanded).
The Government's concession that committee members have at least the same rights under FACA as the public goes to the heart of Cummock's document request. Cummock clearly possesses an enforceable right to information under FACA, because any member of the public possesses such a right. Moreover, Cummock possesses an even greater right than a member of the public, because, as a Commission member, she is entitled to fully participate in its deliberations. Thus, provided that Cummock was granted the requisite security clearance, the Commission could not deny her access to information that it reviewed and relied upon in formulating its recommendations--even if, for instance, that information might have been withheld from the public pursuant to a FOIA exemption…..
The America Spectator 6/18/97 John B Roberts II "…… When he was putting together his White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security late last July, after the explosion of TWA 800, Bill Clinton took the trouble to call Victoria Cummock personally and ask her to join. Cummock, who had lost her husband over Lockerbie on Pan Am 103 eight years before, seemed a solid, logical choice. Since her husband's death she had devoted so much time and effort to improving airline safety that Newsday labeled her "the airlines' most tenacious foe." Aboard Air Force One -- en route to a New York appearance to share the grief of the families of TWA 800's victims -- the president convinced Cummock that he sincerely wanted to develop stringent new counter-terrorism measures for America's airlines. Vice President Al Gore, he added, would head the new Commission. She agreed to join. Now Victoria Cummock has filed suit in federal court against Gore and the Department of Transportation, charging that the vice president pressured her to abandon her call for counter-terrorism measures and refused to publish a 42-page dissent she had filed, despite promising her publicly at the Commission's last meeting that her dissent would be included in the official report. Her suit demands access to the internal memos and files she claims Gore's staff withheld from the commissioners, so that if necessary a new dissent can be prepared. Al Gore, she believes, sold her out. ……"
Airline Fuel Tanks Deemed Safe 8/16/00 Randolph Schmid AP "….A three-year study launched in the wake of the crash of TWA Flight 800 has concluded that airline fuel tanks are safe, industry trade groups said Wednesday. ``The world's commercial aircraft fleet continues to be safe and that includes the fuel systems,'' said Robert Peel, director of air worthiness and technical standards of the Air Transport Association, the airline industry trade association. He said more than 100,000 work hours were spent inspecting 990 aircraft operated by 160 airlines as part of the program launched in August 1997. ……Questions about the safety of airline fuel tanks had been raised during the investigation of the crash of TWA Flight 800, which exploded on July 17, 1996, crashing into the ocean off the coast of New York's Long Island. All 230 aboard the Boeing 747 bound from New York to Paris were killed. ….."http://TWA800.com/images/times-8-15-00.gif
Ian@Goddard.net 8/16/00 ".......TWA FLIGHT 800 crash witnesses fed up with the official investigation formed the "TWA 800 Eyewitness Alliance," which published a full-page ad in the Washington Times today demanding that the government tell the truth about the crash. In bold-face type they proclaim: "WE SAW TWA FLIGHT 800 SHOT DOWN BY MISSILES AND WE WON'T BE SILENCED ANY LONGER ... We, the eyewitnesses know that missiles were involved. We don't know who launched them, but we know that for some reason our government has lied and tried to discredit all of us to keep that question from being addressed. ... The claim that our evidence is worthless is false and we want to know who is behind it. Hundreds of us SAW what happened. The FBI, the CIA and the NTSB must not be allowed to get away with this cover-up by defamation of the eyewitnesses." ....... See Full Ad: http://TWA800.com/images/times-8-15-00.gif ........"
Ian@Goddard.net 8/16/00 ".......It was shortly after the crash, after I'd interviewed several witnesses that I realized there was something here. Each of these people who I contacted based on their names reported in the media was telling me about the same thing, about a rocket that rose from a low elevation fairly close to shore and that flew out to sea, headed south, trailing smoke in its path. That flight path was at 90 degrees to Flight 800's path, so it could not be Flight 800. The rocket ended in a small explosion -- the initial crash event. When I accumulated all witness accounts from which a line- of-sight could be established, I found that the rocket that they observed came from the same area, and the area was not the same as the crash. I then triangulated those accounts http://www.erols.com/igoddard/witness.gif . Even the accounts from which reliable line-of-sight could not be established were looking in the same general area. Not long thereafter retired Navy crash investigator Commander William Donaldson published his own triangulation of many more accounts than I had and his were based on interviews on location. His triangulated close-to-shore launch site is almost the same, one or two miles off my triangulation: http://twa800.com/images/triangulation_update.gif With the release of the NTSB report we discovered that the FBI had also triangulated missile-witness accounts and the FBI had triangulated accounts to virtually the same close-to-shore location both Donaldson and I independently determined: http://www.twa800.com/images/fbi_triangle.gif . These accounts are a human recording of what happened.
TWA Flight 800 Eyewitness Databases:
WorldNetDaily.com 8/26/00 "…..Not to worry, says the National Transportation Safety Board, the cause of the TWA tragedy was sloppy routing by Boeing of some low-voltage wires to the central fuel tank. In future, the Federal Aviation Administration is not going to allow such sloppy routing. ...... According to the NTSB, such sloppiness allowed coupling between frayed high-voltage and low-voltage wires. When a high-voltage pulse somehow got coupled into the practically empty -- except for some fumes -- fuel tank, it was like a sparkplug igniting the fuel-air mixture in the engine of your SUV. According to the NTSB, the "explosion" of the ignited fumes 1) instantaneously chopped all electrical power to the cockpit, 2) blew off the whole front-third of the plane, 3) ruptured the wing fuel tanks and 4) set fire to the resulting fuel-air mixture, which burned until the aft two-thirds of the plane hit the water. ……Oh, yeah? ……"
WorldNetDaily.com 8/26/00 "…..In tests of an almost empty central fuel tank, the NTSB apparently had some difficulty getting such a low-pressure fuel-air mixture to deflagrate. But the NTSB fuzzed up the issue by calling the deflagration "an explosion." They announced that they had been able to get a simulated TWA 800 fuel tank to "explode." Well, that's not a lie, but then it's not exactly the truth, either. …… But in the TWA 800 tragedy, we know that something supersonic -- something that was over before the sound of it could reach the cockpit sound recorder -- instantaneously chopped all electrical power to the TWA 800 cockpit. A concurrent powerful blast wave separated all of aircraft forward of the wing -- including the cockpit -- from the rest of the plane. ...... Then the fuel tanks in the wings of the plane "deflagrated," burning brightly for many seconds. ......"
WorldNetDaily.com 8/26/00 "…..All that is consistent with what hundreds of people on the ground reported. First, they heard a detonation, then they looked and saw a big explosion, then heard a big explosion and then saw a brightly burning fire which lasted for many seconds. ……. "
WorldNetDaily.com 8/26/00 "…..You think we ought to tell the NTSB what we suspect, that some person or persons unknown, did to TWA 800 what had already been done to Avianca 203? Don't bother. Here is an excerpt the report of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, an official Party to the NTSB TWA 800 investigation: ………An explosion did occur within the center fuel tank during TWA Flight 800. We have not been a party to any evidence, wreckage or tests that could conclude that the center tank explosion was and is the primary contributor to this accident. ... We find that its explosion was as the result of the aircraft breakup. The initial event caused a structural failure in the area of Flight stations 854 to 860, lower left side of the aircraft. A high-pressure event breached the fuselage and the fuselage unzipped due to the event. The explosion was a result of this event!………" ………. By "high-pressure event" they mean a detonation, a supersonic shock. Like from a bomb, detonated inside, or a missile warhead, detonated outside, which penetrated the central fuel tank. Like, what the FBI claims happened on Nov. 27, 1989, to Avianca Airlines Flight 203. ……."http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-column-20009619185.htm tony Blankley "……The Gore Commission produced a tough preliminary report, and at a Sept. 9, 1996, press conference Mr. Gore publicly asserted the need for those changes. And then, all hell broke loose - but for Mr. Gore, not for the terrorists. "Within ten days, the whole [airline] industry jumped all over Al Gore," Mrs. Cummock reported. On Sept. 19, Mr. Gore sent a letter to airline lobbyist Carol Hallett, promising that the commission's findings would not cause the airlines any loss of revenue. The next day the Democratic National Committee received a $40,000 contribution from TWA. In the next two weeks Northwest, United and American Airlines donated $55,000 more…………. In the following two months (leading up to the November 1996 presidential elections) American Airlines donated a quarter of a million dollars to the Democrats. United Airlines donated $100,000 to the DNC. Northwestern upped its anty to $53,000. In all, Mr. Gore and the Democrats collected almost half a million dollars between the election and the day - two months before - that Mr. Gore assured the airlines his commission wouldn't cost them any money.
Associated Retired Aviation Professionals 9/6/00 Jerry Cimisi "…… In a phone interview some days after the NTSB hearing, now retired TWA pilot Al Mundo, who had brought the plane into New York from Athens late on the afternoon of July 17, 1996, explained not only the fuel system of the plane, but detailed his reasons why the center wing fuel tank would not have been the initiating cause of the explosion or explosions that destroyed Flight 800. ...... "We had left Athens that Wednesday morning," said Mundo. "The center wing tank would have been full." ............ "We turn on both of the center wing tank fuel pumps. The center wing tank has two pumps, which work at twice the capacity of the other four main tank pumps; their fuel flow is at fifteen pounds per square inch (psi), the center wing tank pumps put out fuel at thirty psi. ……… "The cross feed valves are open, which allow fuel from the center wing tank pumps to go to the number one, two, three and four engines. We shut off the pumps from the number one main and its reserve and the number four main and its reserve. We leave the pumps on from two and three as back up, though because they are working at a rate only half that of the center wing tank, it's the center wing tank that is supplying fuel to the engines. At that point the two and three main tank feed is there as a backup. Anyway, at this point the center wing tank is supplying fuel to all the engines. …….. "Eventually, as the center wing tank burns down to about 3,000-4,000 pounds of fuel, the fuel begins to feed from the number two and three main tanks." When the fuel quantity in the center wing tank gets low, a light for each pump begins to blink on the flight engineer's panels. "When the light gets steady," said Mundo, "you turn off the pump for that light. ……. "Then you turn on the fuel/water scavenge pumps in the center wing tank to drain any liquid remaining. " ……….. With the feed from the center wing tank now turned off, all four engines are being fueled from the number two and number three main tanks. ……"
Associated Retired Aviation Professionals 9/6/00 Jerry Cimisi "…… Mundo went on: "When the plane landed in New York, the center wing tank guage in the cockpit would have read zero pounds. It is possible that the underwing center wing tank fuel gauge could have read 300 pounds, which would be about fifty gallons. This is not an unusual discrepancy." ...... In the first few days after the Flight 800 investigation Mundo asked a TWA official what exactly the fuel use log had shown in regards to the quantity of fuel in the center wing tank upon arriving in New York. "He told me," Mundo said, "that the log, which is placed in the Flight Document Envelope and normally kept for ninety days, could not be found. This was an abnormality." …….. He added that whatever level of fuel existed in the center wing tank at that time would not be entirely composed of fuel. "All fuel contains some water. It's the same with the gas in your car. Fuel is 6.7 pounds per gallon; water is heavier, 8.34 pounds, so the water goes to the bottom of the tank. This combination of water and fuel is what the scavenger pumps transfer to the number two main tank." …….. In sum, the center wing tank of the plane that was about to become Flight 800 was empty or nearly empty before leaving New York in the late afternoon prior to its evening takeoff to Paris. Because of prevailing winds, planes usually carry more fuel when going west than when going east. "And then," said Mundo, "you also have to consider the distance youâ(tm)re travelling. Athens to New York is a lot farther than New York to Paris." ......"
Associated Retired Aviation Professionals 9/6/00 Jerry Cimisi "…… Now we get to one of the crucial points of the NTSB theory about the volatility of the center wing tank. Mundo said, "There is the assumption by the NTSB that the fuel was heated by the air conditioning packs below the plane to a temperature that caused the fuel and fuel vapors to reach an explosive level." ......... This is an assessment with which the majority of the media concur. A New York Times article from Wednesday, August 23, the day after the NTSB hearing began, stated, "the nearly empty tank, which had been heated to an explosive state while the twenty-five year old jet sat baking in the sun for nearly three hours before taking off." ……..... "This is something they should have tested, but they didn't, exactly. The NTSB flew a plane across the continental United States, trying to duplicate the conditions of the Athens to New York flight, but in the summer the air over the land would be warmer than over the North Atlantic" and of course the plane would not be in the air for as long as on an Athens to New York run. Nobody knows exactly what the temperature in the fuel tank was when Flight 800 took off from New York. …….. "
Associated Retired Aviation Professionals 9/6/00 Jerry Cimisi "……"Flight 800 took off for Paris at about 8:15 p.m. on the evening of July 17, 1996. A nearly empty tank has more fuel vapor than a tank that is full. Government investigators speculate that the vapor-ridden center wing full tank was ripe for an explosion" instigated by the as-yet unfound electrical source. …….. But Mundo pointed out that the center wing fuel tank is vented to relieve the pressure inside the tank. "With an aircraft in flight," Mundo said, "you have a Venturi effect over the vent outlet. The more the speed, the less the pressure. When you're in a car and someone's smoking and you open a window, the air pressure outside is less than the pressure inside and the greater pressure inside pushes the air outside; the smoke will be sucked out of the car. The air rushing outside the plane would create a great suction that should have decreased or eliminated any buildup of vapor in the tank." …….."
Associated Retired Aviation Professionals 9/6/00 Jerry Cimisi "……Former TWA pilot Al Mundo then talked about another aspect of the electrical spark theory: on Good Friday, 1995, when he was flying the plane that would become Flight 800 in July, 1996, the aircraft was struck not once but twice by lightning. …….. The plane did not explode. ……… "We were descending into Rome. We were at about 13,000-11,000 feet. There were two strikes of lightning, about three minutes apart. There was a loud bang, and a yellow flash; initially there was no indication of anything wrong in the cockpit." …….. But a photoelectric cell activated an inerting gas whose purpose was to smother any fire or smouldering that could be caused by an electrical spark. This was done on the first lightning strike. ...... "The damage incurred was extensive. The plane was out of service for a week," said Mundo. …….. But despite the damage that had been inflicted by the two lightning strikes, the plane was able to land safely. The inference is obvious: if the plane that expolded fifteen minutes out of JFK in the summer of 1996 was brought down by an electrical spark igniting the center wing fuel tank, why didn't two lightning strikes, which would certainly supply infinitely more voltage to the electrical system of the plane than the theorized stray spark, cause the aircraft to be blown apart? ......"
Associated Retired Aviation Professionals 9/6/00 Jerry Cimisi "…… Early on in the Flight 800 investigation, Mundo learned that there had been sooting found on the right wing vent system. "It seemed strange to me that if the explosion was initiated by the center wing tank, why would there not be sooting on both sides of the wing? I contacted personnel in the investigating team and suggested they check those records from the 1995 flight to determine if the sooting came from the lightning strikes. I was later informed that the records could not be located." ……… Mundo was questioned by investigators "about five days after Flight 800," he said, but the extent of the questioning was solely on the character of the Athens to New York Flight. The former pilot continues to feel that government investigators have not pursued the obvious lines of inquiry raised above" or, if they have, such tests or studies have not been made public. ……."
TWA800 Expert Panel Blackout 8/22/00 Ian Goddard "…..While the U.S. media faithfully blacked out the press conference of a panel of independent experts who disagree with the official investigation of the TWA Flight 800 crash, Agence France Presse cites it. Of particular note is that the flight data recorder (FDR) expert who examined the black boxes claims that four seconds were removed from the FDR data. ……. Indeed, one FDR second found in the NTSB's 1997 report was suddenly erased from that report at (http://users.erols.com/igoddard/coverup3.htm) the NTSB's website shortly after former Navy crash investigator William Donaldson presented an analysis about that erased FDR second which concluded that it indicates a missile strike: http://members.aol.com/bardonia/analysis.htm http://members.aol.com/bardonia/2seconds.htm ……"
AFP 8/22/00 "……..An independent panel of experts on Monday lambasted the results of an official investigation into the 1996 fatal TWA Flight 800 crash, and maintained its theory the plane was downed by a missile. ……… According to the Flight 800 Independent Research Organization (FIRO), the official investigators had concealed crucial pieces of information from a final report to be presented Tuesday and Wednesday. ……… Aviation consultant engineer Glen Schulze, who analyzed the so-called "black boxes," also claimed that information was missing. "Four seconds of data has been removed from the Flight Data Recorder when the FBI was in charge of the investigation," he said. …….. Lending his weight to the argument of possible foul play, retired United Airlines pilot Richard Russell claimed he had received a copy of radar data showing a small object flying next to the plane that indicated a possible missile. ……. "An (air traffic) controller has identified the target as potentially being a missile," Russell said, declining to identify his source of information. ……."
Fox News/AP 8/22/00 Randolph E Schmid "……Four years after TWA Flight 800 plunged into the ocean, killing all 230 people aboard, investigators have reached "the inescapable conclusion" that the plane was brought down by an explosion of fuel vapors in its center wing tank. "The bottom line is that our investigation confirmed that the fuel-air vapor in the center wing tank was flammable at the time of the accident, and that a fuel-air explosion with Jet A fuel was more than capable of generating the pressure needed to break apart the center wing tank and destroy the airplane," said Bernard S. Loeb, director of aviation safety for the National Transportation Safety Board. ……….Loeb summarized the investigators' findings as the board began a two-day session discussing the crash, its causes and possible safety measures that need to be taken. Loeb indicated the investigators have yet to determine exactly what ignited the blast, but said an electrical short appears the most likely cause. ……."
Washington Times 8/23/00 Randolph Schmid "…..Despite all the fears and conspiracy theories, the conclusion is "inescapable" that an explosion of vapors in a fuel tank is what brought down TWA Flight 800 four years ago at a loss of 230 lives, a top federal investigator concluded yesterday. Investigators "cannot be certain" what ignited the blast, but the most likely cause was an electrical short in wiring inside the tank, said Bernard S. Loeb, aviation safety director of the National Transportation Safety Board. The physical evidence, he said, "leads to the inescapable conclusion" that the plane was brought down by a fuel-air explosion inside the center wing tank. As the meeting wore on, Robert Swaim of the aviation engineering section expressed the frustration of investigators seeking the source of ignition. "I would love to walk in here with a molten piece of wire and say, 'Here it is,"' he said………. The NTSB findings, however well documented, are unlikely to be accepted by dissenters with theories ranging from bombs to a Navy missile to air turbulence………. Some contend the government is trying to cover up the real cause, and one group, calling itself the TWA 800 Eyewitness Alliance, ran a full-page ad in yesterday's Washington Times insisting missiles brought the plane down…….. "It is unfortunate that a small number of people, pursuing their own agendas, have persisted in making unfounded charges of government coverup in this investigation," Mr. Hall said. Bomb and missile blasts leave distinct patterns, Mr. Loeb explained. "High-energy explosions leave distinctive damage signatures such as severe pitting, cratering, hot gas washing, and petaling. No such damage was found on any portion of the recovered airplane structure," he said. Tiny traces of explosive discovered in the cabin were probably left over from exercises testing bomb-sniffing dogs conducted on the plane days before, investigators said…….."
Excite News 8/23/00 "…..AP - Federal investigators say an explosion of vapors in the fuel tank caused TWA Flight 800 to plunge into the ocean, killing all 230 passengers aboard, but four years after the crash they are still unable to pinpoint what ignited the blast. A solid body of circumstantial evidence points to an electrical short as the cause, but there was not enough wire recovered from the wreckage to know for sure, said Robert Swaim of the National Transportation Safety Board. "I would love to walk in here with a molten piece of wire and say, 'Here it is."' said Swaim, who spent four years looking for the source of the ignition. Swaim's conclusions came Tuesday on the first day of a two-day meeting to study investigators' reports on the crash and its cause. …… While wiring inside the fuel tank is very low voltage those wires are bundled together with higher voltage wires and a short could have been carried into the fuel tank, investigators said. Air and fuel had been heated by an air conditioner positioned underneath the tank while the plane was delayed for three hours prior to takeoff. That helped to make the tank volatile when it climbed in altitude, NTSB investigator Joseph Kolly said. Given those conditions, a spark as weak as the static electricity transferred between a person's hand a metal doorknob would have been sufficient for an explosion, Kolly said. ….."
NewsMax.com 8/22/00 Reed Irvine "…… On July 17, the fourth anniversary of the TWA 800 tragedy, a group called the TWA 800 Eyewitness Alliance sponsored a news conference together with independent investigators of the crash. Two eyewitnesses to the crash, Michael Wire and Dwight Brumley, spoke. They were both singled out as excellent witnesses by a CIA analyst in a document that was released by the National Transportation Safety Board last April together with the FBI reports of its interviews of 755 eyewitnesses. Wire and Brumley were amazed and angry to find that the CIA had misrepresented what they told the FBI. .........
Michael Wire was standing on a drawbridge on the south shore of Long Island gazing out over the water when he saw what he described at first as a "cheap firework" rising from behind a house not far away that was blocking his view of the horizon. He called it "cheap" because it kind of zigzagged as it went up. It didn't behave like a Roman candle. When it got high in the sky it leveled out and sped out to sea. He lost sight of it momentarily, when near the spot where he last saw it there was an explosion so strong that when the shock wave hit several seconds later, it shook the 70-ton bridge. He then saw a fireball that fell toward the ocean. ………
Dwight Brumley, a retired Navy electronics warfare expert, was a passenger in a northbound airliner that was abut 7,000 feet above TWA 800 when it blew up. Looking out his window on the right side of the plane he caught sight of a bright light below that was moving north at a high rate of speed. He said that as it peaked and pitched over he saw two explosions, one after the other, followed by a fireball that elongated as it fell into the sea. The passenger in the seat behind him, a Mr. Nugent, told him he had seen the cabin lights of an airliner before it blew up. The light Brumley saw speeding north could not have been TWA 800, which was flying east. It was the plane whose cabin lights were seen by Nugent just before the explosion. ......"
ABCNEWS 8/23/00 "…… Investigators of the deadly crash of TWA Flight 800 believe the design of the Boeing 747 aircraft and its fuel tanks were at least partly to blame for the tragedy, ABCNEWS has learned. They also cite government certification of the safety of the plane and the tanks, sources familiar with the investigation of the crash told ABCNEWS' Lisa Stark today. Investigators, on the first day of a two-day NTSB hearing on the crash, today said an electrical short circuit outside the center fuel tank of Flight 800 likely sent excess voltage through wires into the tank, igniting flammable vapors and causing the jet to explode. ......... Boeing officials today stood by the aircraft design. "The design with the air conditioning packs under the center wing tank is a very common design for Boeing and other manufacturers. It is fully certified by the FAA," Russ Young, a Boeing spokesman, told ABCNEWS today. "We'll wait to hear what the NTSB has to say tomorrow." Both Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration, which certifies plane and part safety and design, have long held to the philosophy that to prevent explosions, jets had to eliminate ignition sources, but not necessarily tank flammability……… Another Boeing official today told ABCNEWS that reduction of ignition sources and flammability went hand-in-hand....... "We think that both ignition source reduction and flammability reduction are really complementary and not mutually exclusive," said Ron Hinderberger, director of airplane safety for Boeing. "We think that both of them are needed in order to ensure that we can have the most safe system that we can possibly have." ......"
CBSNEWS 8/22/00 "……Four years after TWA Flight 800 exploded and plunged into the ocean, federal investigators ruled out any sabotage or missile as the cause of the explosion that brought down the Boeing 747 and killed the 230 people on board. The National Transportation Safety Board said Tuesday during the opening of a two-day public meeting to release its final report that evidence confirms what they've long suspected: the jumbo jet was blown apart in flight on July 17, 1996, by a catastrophic explosion of the plane's center-wing fuel tank shortly after takeoff. Bernard Loeb, director of the NTSB's office of aviation safety, said the most likely cause of the crash involved electrical wiring leading to the center-wing fuel tank. …….."
NewsMax 8/26/00 Carl Limbacher "…… Accuracy in Media chairman Reed Irvine appears to really have gotten under the skin of the National Transportation Safety Board. This past Tuesday in Washington the NTSB offered its final report on the July 1996 crash of TWA 800. ……… Irvine says all the evidence points to a missile. Irvine helped form a new group called the "TWA Eyewitness Alliance." The alliance, with AIM's help, took out two large ads in the Washington Times denouncing the government conclusion. …….. Just before the NTSB meeting this past Tuesday Irvine decided to hand out copies of the ad in the lobby outside the meeting hall. A security guard quickly told Irvine he would have to stop. Irvine explained that this was public property and there was a little thing called the First Amendment that allowed him to do it. ......... Minutes later the guard came back and said the building was leased by the government, and that he would have to quit handing out copies of the ad or be escorted out of the building. "The only way I will leave is if you carry me," Irvine told the guard. Irvine went limp and laid on the floor. The guards picked the 150 pound media critic and deposited him street side. Several TV cameras were there, including ABC News, which aired the footage of Irvine being forcible removed. ……"
Citizen Investigator 8/28/00 Tom Shoemaker and Richard Hirsch "……At this time we cannot prove that one or more missiles struck TWA Flight 800. We have no obligation to supply such a proof at this time. Our obligation is to chronicle the considerable collection of TWA Flight 800-related facts which may point towards missile involvement that have not been adequately addressed by officials over the past 49 months . We do not want to close our own study without a more careful examination of that possibility. ……We think it is as fair for us to discuss a possible missile shoot-down of TWA Flight 800 as it is for the NTSB to discuss the possible explosion of the Center Wing tank as being the cause of the crash. Our "proof" is as good as the "proof" being given by the NTSB at its public meetings. The truth of the matter is the NTSB has working theories for the reasons for the disaster. Working theories are not proofs: they are nothing more than professional speculations. In the absence of a proven causation scenario we each must choose the explanation that is most believable to ourselves,insisting that the final belief rests firmly on factual evidence, fact-based inferences, and critical and careful thought rather than free-floating speculations. ......"
Citizen Investigator 8/28/00 Tom Shoemaker and Richard Hirsch "……2: Some of What We Don't Know About TWA Flight 800 ………
1. The NTSB's CWT scenario is unproven. The NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) insists an explosion of the large, almost empty CWT (Center Wing Tank) destroyed the aircraft. But the NTSB cannot explain what initiated it. The NTSB also cannot get a CWT to explode without resorting to different fuels and contrived ignition schemes. …….. More evidence is becoming available now which indicates certain fuels may, in fact, exhibit explosive characteristics over a wider range of conditions than previously believed. The weight of evidence accumulated over the past four years, however, counsels that aircraft fuel systems are incredibly safe and reliable rather than incredibly quirky, volatile, unstable, and dangerous. ……."
2. All possible explosives tests have not been carried out by officials. Nitrates, which are ingredients of many explosives, were found splattered on a piece of wreckage located close to the point where the aircraft exploded. But the NTSB has not performed the tests needed to further identify the possible origins of those deposits. ………. This is still true. Incredibly, tests on residues found within TWA Flight 800 wreckage that are well known components of explosives including military munitions and projectile fuels were not carried out as a consequence of official decision-making…. .
3. The CVR may contain additional information. The CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) within the aircraft recorded a loud noise just before it stopped recording at the moment catastrophic structural damage was taking place aboard the aircraft. To this day the NTSB cannot identify that sound ………… This is still true. ….
4. Official tests of the "red residues" have not been definitive. To counter the suggestion by a journalist that certain red residues found on interior wreckage of the aircraft were residues of missile exhaust, officials have stated those residues were traces of a glue routinely used to attach fabric to seats. These officials have never fully used their test facilities to compare the glue's chemical composition with that of the found residues. ………… This remains true. A fair-minded person would settle for a "test-off" of the fabric in question by a prestigious and completely independent laboratory to end the debate on this topic between officials and critics. Such a fair analysis has never taken place. ….
5. The official "canine dog exercise" as a source of explosives residues is unconvincing. Explosives residues found in the interior wreckage of the aircraft have been explained away by officials as having been inadvertently deposited during a canine explosives test the month before the disaster. Information concerning that canine exercise strongly suggests it was performed aboard a different aircraft altogether. ………… Still true. Explosives residues were found in multiple places on the wreckage of TWA Flight 800. To claim an innocent genesis for the presence of such residues, officials pieced together and circulated the story of a police canine explosives detection exercise taking place aboard the doomed aircraft weeks before the disaster. Proof of that exercise aboard that particular aircraft remains incomplete...and if the last elements of that arguable scenario collapse, there is no benign explanation for bits of explosives being found within TWA Flight 800. ….
6. The radar tapes have never been shown and definitively explained. A radar tape of the accident showing the destruction of the aircraft was leaked to the public. Immediately after the accident a FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) technician stated the tape showed a possible intercept of the aircraft by a missile. Such an interpretation was later dismissed by officials. Persons possessing the tape were threatened with federal prosecution, and the tape remains under official wraps to this day…………… And that was the saga of only one radar tape. Official explanations of what that tape showed and didn't show were so varied it was never clear what the simple truth of the data was. There were many more radar sites having a view of the disaster. Their original data has not been freely shared with the public by officials. Radar data records supplied by officials have been selectively cropped, resulting in incomplete views of the complete crash environment.
7. Eyewitness information has been suppressed. Eyewitnesses to the tragedy were not interviewed in a timely manner. Some eyewitnesses waited months to be interviewed by officials. Direct eyewitness testimony was excluded from the NTSB's December, 1997 TWA Flight 800 Baltimore Hearings. In most disasters eyewitnesses play a very positive, major role: in this case eyewitness information has been hidden by officials. …………… Officials claimed CIA and NTSB animations were based on eyewitness input: the problem lies in finding any eyewitness who believes his or her inputs were followed by those animations! For a considerable time, the NTSB did no eyewitness interviews. Then they were allowed to eyeball FBI eyewitness reports, but not allowed to have copies of them. More recently (just this year) eyewitness data has been released to the public. ….
8. Unknown vessels were close to the victim aircraft when it exploded. After more than four years following the disaster, officials refuse to identify some of the radar tracks passing quite near the victim aircraft. At least one of those unidentified tracks was virtually underneath the aircraft when it exploded. Immediately after the explosion it fled the scene instead of arriving to lend rescue and recovery assistance. Officials continue to refuse to identify that vessel. …………. The identity of that vessel is still not publicly known. ….
9. The Flight Data Recorder's information needs further interpretation. When private researchers noted abnormalities in the FDR (Flight Data Recorder) records of the victim aircraft, the NTSB simply drew a line through the suspect data and stated that data belonged to another flight. Additional FDR abnormalities remain unexplained almost three years after the crash. …………. Still true. ….
10. The armed services have not been sufficiently frank. Despite initial official denials that military exercises had been scheduled for the ocean areas just to the south of victim aircraft's flight path, it was later determined that military exercises had indeed been carried out not far from the disaster scene. The numbers and types of military ships south of Long Island at the time of the accident were also initially minimized and misrepresented by officials. ……………. These confusions persist. ….
Citizen Investigator 8/28/00 Tom Shoemaker and Richard Hirsch "……Some of the independent researchers have concluded that three different missiles struck TWA Flight 800...some will tell you Middle Easterners fired those missiles...some will say those Middle Easterners entered the U.S. with their missiles from Canada...and that the missiles themselves are known to have come from a specific nation in the Eastern Hemisphere...some will say the Navy fired missiles...some will try to name the ship from which the missiles were fired.....some will name the specific type of missile for you...some will delineate for you what data radar tapes they have never seen contain ...some will tell you the government knows terrorists destroyed TWA Flight 800 and has chosen to protect the terrorist murderers for domestic political reasons ... but even when argued long and passionately such ideas remain speculations, not facts.......... These speculations presented as facts are hurting the serious independent investigation work. The constant release of a myriad of unproven charges does more to muck up the investigation than to help it. The speculators sometimes appear to believe that their personal conviction is really all the proof they need to make their case. ………For all the energy invested in those speculations, their proponents would be hard pressed to prove such a case as a fact in a court of law or even in a decent high school debate tournament. At times there appears to be an overwhelming urge to attempt to bridge the chasm between speculation and proof with a leap lightened by the abandonment of weighty but necessary facts. This is a prescription for disaster that can be avoided. ……… Plain talk among the researchers should be able to separate beliefs from facts. There is no disgrace in an investigator admitting his hypothesis is a few facts short of a proof. Traditionally that admission has spurred researchers to refine their techniques and redouble their efforts.........."http://www.newsmax.com/articles?a=1999/4/26/152337 Newsmax 4/26/00 Michael Hull "…. Chris Baur and Fritz Meyer were New York Air National Guard pilots who witnessed the crash of TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996 and flew straight to the scene. ......
Newsmax 4/26/00 Michael Hull "…. On July 29, 1997 the Riverside Press reported that Meyer was convinced he had seen an "ordnance explosion" near the plane. He commented: "The explosion of the fuel was not the initiator of the event. It was one of the results. Something happened before that which was the initiator of the disaster." ......... The two pilots were describing separate missiles: both missiles exploded and the fuel from the aircraft then ignited in a "fireball". ...... "
Newsmax 4/26/00 Michael Hull "….In March 1998 Meyer spoke to the Granada Forum (a conservative organization located in Hollywood, CA) and described an interesting phone call he had received which supported his position that he and Baur had witnessed two missiles. …. "After my picture appeared on television I received a phone call one night from an anonymous person - the person just got on the phone and said: 'You don't know who I am but I work for Sikorsky'. …. He said there is a tape -- and I don't think it is a tape -- I think it is a digital disk -- there is a tape of the Sikorsky radar which shows two targets approaching TWA Flight 800 before the impact -- one a high speed supersonic and one subsonic. The Sikorsky radar is not up in Bridgehampton - the Sikorsky radar is in Riverhead - it's actually just 5 miles north of the Suffolk County airport, which I was flying to. It is a remote site run by the U.S. Navy Virginia Capes authority and they lease the digital information to Sikorsky so that when helicopters are out there being tested, Sikorsky has the most sophisticated data radar that the Navy has watching their helicopters. When I went down to talk to my congressman in Washington, an assistant of his showed me a list of all the data that the FBI said they were holding -- all the documentation. I looked for this particular tape on it because the gentleman on the telephone had told me that the FBI had come in the next morning and confiscated it -- he used that word. The tape was not on that list and so in an interview in Washington I told Congressman Traficant that I didn't see this radar tape on the list that the FBI had given to Congressman Forbes. After my interview with him, Congressman Duncan sent a letter to the FBI specifically asking for this tape by name - just nailed it down and said: "Do you have this?" Even though it wasn't on the inventory that they presented to the Congress, they then admitted that they did have it in their possession -- said it didn't show anything unusual -- but refused to release it to anybody." (A video of Meyer's presentation is available from Dennis Whipple, 2315 Marine Avenue, Gardena, CA 90249.) ......"
Newsmax 4/26/00 Michael Hull "…. Rosa Gray Khalilch saw "double orange flares" streak upward and explode into a large orange fireball. The flares were arcing and trailed by gray smoke. ……… Tom Stalcup, a research assistant in the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Tallahassee, Florida, interviewed Barbara Pacholk on January 28, 1998. Pacholk said she saw "two objects" rise from the surface. The first object exploded near the tail and the second near the nose. She also noticed two large navy vessels on the ocean. One of these vessels, Pacholk declared, quickly left the area after the tragedy. ……… Frank Lenahan and his wife were sitting on their outside deck when Frank saw "two red streaks", very vivid in color, ascend. He brought this to the attention of his wife who turned and saw one of the streaks go west to east, straight across the horizon just above the dune line. They didn't follow the streaks all the way up as they assumed they were fireworks. ……"
Newsmax 4/26/00 Michael Hull "…. On the evening of June 26, 1996 the Coast Guard received a report of 'three red flares' launched 25 miles south of Shinnecock Inlet - approximately the same location that TWA Flight 800 would explode exactly three weeks later. This report came within hours of the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia conducted by Saudi dissidents funded by Iran and believed to have been directed by Osama bin Laden. An air and surface search was carried out which found nothing out of ordinary. There was no one in distress on the ocean. ………This incident was brought to the FBI's attention on March 17, 1997 when Philip E. Kuhlman, a resident of Moriches, New York sent a letter to James Kallstrom (who headed the FBI investigation into TWA 800) in which he wrote: …….. "I am a retired SA (Special Agent) of the FBI who incidentally resides in the vicinity of the area where TWA flight 800 came down. I feel constrained to write this letter to you in view of all of the furor recently over the possibility of TWA flight 800 being brought down on July 17, 1996 by friendly missile fire. This letter could indicate that possibly flight 800 might have been brought down by hostile missile fire. On Monday, July 22, 1996 I belatedly read the following newspaper article which appeared on page 186 of Dan's Papers, July 5, 1996 edition under the heading of 'U.S. Coast Guard Blotter'. (Dan's Papers is an Eastern Long Island weekly newspaper.): ......... A sailing vessel hailed Coast Guard Station Shinnecock on channel 16 VHF-FM at sunset on June 26, reporting three red flares. The Coast Guard 41-foot Utility Boat responded to the reported position, 25 nautical miles south of Shinnecock Inlet. Station Shinnecock searched throughout the night, along with a Coast guard helicopter and a fixed wing plane from Air Station Cape Cod, with no results. The Coast Guard rescue helicopter returned at sunrise and found no evidence of any distress." …….. Mr. Kuhlman continued: "Upon reading the above, I became curious when I realized that this 'red flare' incident occurred on the same day of the week, a Wednesday, as the downing of flight 800 only three weeks earlier. It also happened at approximately the same time of day and at approximately the same location. I wondered whether this could be a test missile firing on June 26, or perhaps could it be a failed attempt to bring flight 800 down on that date?" ……….. When no reply was received from Kallstrom, Kuhlman wrote to Dan's Papers commenting: ……… "Concerning this letter I sent to Kallstrom, much to my chagrin and amazement, I never received an answer from either him or one of his subordinates -- not even a brief letter advising me that his matter had been checked out and found to be of no significance. Believe me, in the good old days, when I was still with the FBI and might have been one of the men called upon to assist in the handling of this matter, Mr. Hoover would have insisted that a letter of this nature be answered." ………"
Newsmax 4/26/00 Michael Hull "….Kuhlman continued: "Did it (the FBI) know beforehand -- the identity of the 30 knot vessel that was picked up by Islip radar that evening? (July 17, 1996) This was a large, 50 foot-plus ship, that had been at sea more or less under the path of Flight 800 and which had steamed away, going Southwest, afterward, over the horizon. There has been no official identification of this ship and there has been no evidence that this vessel, right beneath the breakup of Flight 800, ever radioed anyone of what it must have witnessed. Well, in view of this unidentified ship revelation on the night that Flight 800 went down, my curiosity has again been aroused as to the possibility of this vessel being identical with the mysterious 'distress' vessel on the evening of June 26, 1996." (Kuhlman's letters may be read in their entirety in the 'Interim Report on the Crash of TWA Flight 800 for The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, U.S. House of Representatives, July 17, 1998'. This report is available on the internet at http://www.twa800.com/ ……….."
Newsmax 4/26/00 Michael Hull "…. In a December 17, 1996 article The Washington Times stated: …… "An official with the Defense Intelligence Agency, spy arm of the Pentagon, has informed congressional staff members that, in his opinion, a shoulder-fired missile brought down TWA Flight 800. The same DIA official, described as an expert in missile technology, told the staff members last week that he personally was called in by the FBI in the days following the explosion of the TWA jet to assist with witness interviews." ……. The article went on to report that a congressional source present at the briefing by the DIA official reported: "In his opinion, the plane was brought down by at least one shoulder-fired missile" and then the source remarked, "When he said that, we all took a deep breath." …… After seeing the CIA video depicting the U.S. government's explanation of the crash, witness Barbara Pacholk told the New York Post (November 19, 1997): ........., "I know what I saw, I saw several fires go across the sky. One hit the plane at the tail and the second hit at the front, just before the wings. The fire came from both ends and met in the middle and exploded. Then the nose dropped, hung there for a minute. I understand that when a plane bursts into flames the flames fall, but this was a fire going up towards the plane. I wouldn't accuse anyone of wrongdoing, but I'm definitely still wondering what happened." …….."
Newsmax 4/26/00 Michael Hull "….Commander William S. Donaldson USN (Ret.) - former Officer-in-Charge of Carrier Battlegroup's Air Traffic Control Center, pilot and military accident investigator, developed additional eyewitness evidence that two missiles were fired towards TWA Flight 800. Donaldson located the firing points of the missiles by triangulating witness bearing lines as described in his 'Interim Report on the Crash of TWA Flight 800 for The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, U.S. House of Representatives, July 17, 1998'. The report, which was provided to Congressman Traficant, may be read on the internet at http://twa800.com/report/Final.PDF. ......... A missile was fired from a location one nautical mile off shore and three nautical miles east of Moriches Inlet. ………. The second missile was fired approximately 10 miles out to sea from a surface vessel that sailed away from the disaster at 30 knots. ………"
Ian Goddard 9/20/00 "……IAN: The following is from a post I made where I raise some important facts relevant to the question of whether Govt officials discovered missile damage in the wreckage of the TWA Flight 800 crash (the following listing of facts is not inclusive of all facts pertaining to the question of physical evidence of a missile impact): ……… A Govt-line defender wrote: I call people loons for insisting that confused witness reports should take precedence over physical evidence -- or rather, the lack of physical evidence for a missile. ... People who saw lights in the sky didn't know what they saw. We know that because we know that no missile hit the airplane. ………. IAN: For the most part, most of what we know about the physical evidence is what other people tell us about it, like that there's no missile-impact damage to be found in it. And other people, like a senior NTSB investigator, Hank Hughes, tell us that FBI agents hammered bent metal flat and stuck knives and a screw into a seat back destroying any chance of trajectory analysis of holes in that seat back (see: http://judiciary.senate.gov/51099f9.pdf). ……… Major Meyer transported large piece of the leading- edge of a wing to FBI headquarters in DC. Meyer saw a series of holes punched through the wing from the outside of the aircraft to the inside, apparently from high-velocity projectiles projected toward the aircraft from the outside of the aircraft. FBI spokesman Joe Valiquette told the Village Voice that the wing piece with holes was received and then was returned to the NTSB, but the NTSB apparently has no idea what became of this evidence. …….. There were many small holes ripped through the plane cited in NTSB Exhibit 15B that were from projectiles shooting straight down from above the center wing tank (CWT) that were dismissed for they only traveled a little over 1000 ft per second (bullet speed), which the NTSB defined as "low velocity" and thus not possibly caused by missile fragments. Aviation Week Group publication SafeNews (12/22/97) quotes NTSB investigator James Wildey as saying projectiles penetrated the CWT: ……… "'THERE ARE VERY FEW direct-line entry points into the center tank,' Wildey testified, but he did not say there were none." In fact, Wildey describes those holes through the CWT in NTSB Exhibit 15B. If there was just one projectile shot through the CWT it would be sufficient to support the theory that it was ignited by a projectile ripping into it. ……."
http://flight800.org/nat_security.htm "…….. Well before radar data from the crash was publicly available, news stories discussed the possibility that a ship below Flight 800 could have been used as a platform for a missile launch. Within a week of the tragedy, a London Times article entitled 'Streak of Light' reports raise possibility of missile fired from ship contained speculation about just such a scenario. The Times reported that "FBI agents believe any missile must have been fired from a ship beneath the plane."(London Times, 7/23/96) …….. But was there a ship beneath Flight 800 when it exploded? Yes. This ship was located at a forty-five degree angle from vertical and to the southeast of Flight 800. It was tracked by multiple FAA radar sites at 30 knots heading away from the scene and represents the closest (~2.9 nautical miles) known ship to Flight 800 when it crashed. More than 30 other ships were also tracked by the FAA that night, and according to the FBI, all the ships have been identified, except for one--the one described above. According to the FBI, it wasn't until "January, 1997 [when] the FBI first noted the presence of a surface vessel...between 25 and 35 knots... Despite extensive efforts, the FBI has been unable to identify this vessel."(7/27/98 Letter from FBI Acting Assistant Director Lewis D. Schiliro to Congressman James A. Trafficant) …………. Schiliro's letter admits FBI knowledge of a ship near Flight 800, but incredibly the FBI allegedly did not detect it until six months into the investigation. (Readers are urged to view the radar data for themselves, to see how hard or easy such a detection could be made) This blatant oversight would seem impossible for a team of over 1,000 FBI agents involved in the investigation, documented to be pursuing a theory of a ship-launched missile. Nevertheless, a ship was below Flight 800 when it crashed, and it is the only one the FBI failed to identify, after first noticing it six months after the crash…………This investigative mystery was compounded by the U.S. Navy's decision to invoke national security in order to hide the identity and "movement of significant Naval units" near the crash site. In response to a freedom of information act request regarding U.S. naval operations in the vicinity of the crash, Commander C.A. Price wrote "Paragraph 2 of the last document in the release package contains information concerning the movement of significant Naval units and has been withheld under 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (1) [National Security]."(5/20/97 Letter from the Department of the Navy to Press-Enterprise reporter David E. Hendrix) Commander Price whited out an entire paragraph describing "significant Naval units," near the crash site and justified this action by invoking national security. ……….."
"………… When news of the suspicious ships surfaced, Accuracy in Media President Reed Irvine phoned up former FBI Assistant Director and lead TWA 800 investigator, James Kallstrom. Kallstrom, recently retired from the FBI, responded quite candidly during the taped phone interview: "they were Navy vessels that were on classified maneuvers." ……… To compare Kallstrom's claim with official sources, FIRO's Chair, Tom Stalcup, sent a letter to FBI Assistant Director Lewis D. Schiliro, requesting the identities of all unidentified air and surface targets near Flight 800. One month after receiving this letter, Mr. Schiliro retired from his FBI post, and his office is presently searching for the letter, which was sent via certified, return receipt mail and CC'd to two Congresspersons. View the letter here. ……… FIRO does not claim to know the identity of any of these ships, since all information concerning them has been suppressed by the FBI and Navy. However, we feel it is imperative that our civil servants release this information to help the public better understand remaining unexplained evidence. Continued secrecy by the Navy and FBI does little to help disspel lingering suspicions of a coverup among the public in the case of TWA Flight 800. ……."
http://flight800.org/witness_review.htm "…….. In the immediate aftermath of the loss of TWA Flight 800, hundreds of FBI agents descended upon the Hamptons in Long Island. Their task? To interview eyewitnesses to the tragedy. ……… The FBI didn't have to look very hard. At the time of the crash, thousands of potential witnesses were enjoying a beautiful summer evening when Flight 800 went down, just after sunset. The weather, location, and time of year made the crash of Flight 800 one of the most watched commercial airline disasters in history. Before the FBI arrived, many eyewitnesses were already identified and interviewed by the media, sometimes during live broadcasts. A hastily prepared FBI hotline quickly became inundated with witnesses wishing to help……… According to the NTSB Witness Group Study, "in the 3 days following the accident, FBI agents interviewed more than 300" witnesses. Due to the shear number of witnesses, many of the early interviews were very brief, lacking important descriptive details such as bearing lines to object(s) observed. The summary of witness #29 was one such interview, which contains only two sentences describing his observations………Witness 29 "stated that he was in the Smith Point camping ground on Wednesday, July 17, 1996, and saw a flare going up and then saw white smoke. He said he thought it was just a boat sending up a flare and did not pay much attention to it."(NTSB Witness Group Factual Report, Appendix B)…….. This interview summary does not include a bearing line to the "flare," nor any horizontal movement relative to nearby structures included. As for the location of the "smoke" with respect to the flare, readers can only guess. Also, the origin of the flare relative to the horizon was never recorded, nor was the angle of ascent described. These major investigative gaps could only be filled by re-interviewing this witness. But neither the FBI, NTSB, or CIA ever re-interviewed witness #29 or 88% of the other 735 eyewitnesses.(NTSB Witness Group Study)…….."
AP via TBO 12/18/00 ".... Jim Hall, who has overseen investigations into the TWA Flight 800 and John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crashes during his six-year tenure as head of the National Transportation Safety Board, was to announce his resignation, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported Monday. Hall informed President Clinton in a letter that he would leave Jan. 18, although he has two years left at the post, the newspaper said. ...."
Email to Alamo-Girl "…..on page http://www.alamo-girl.com/03681.htm there are some serious mistakes in the dutch navy shiplist. I cannot comment on other nations navies but here goes: The Dutch no longer operate any aircraft carriers. I believe they have three cruisers in their inventory: [re Teh dutch don't have any cruisers] Almirante Grau 'ex-HMNLS De Ruyter Light Guided Missile Cruiser (CLM),Name:CLM.81 Almirante Grau Wilton, Builder: Fijenoord de Schiedam, Keel Laid: Sep.5/39, [Re: The almirante grau used to be a dutch cruiser, but was sold to somehwere south america (peru i think) dead giveaway: Why would the dutch rename a dutch ship?] The Royal Netherlands Navy Multi-purpose (M-Class) or Karel Doorman Class frigate was first deployed in the early 1990's as a replacement for the Wolf and Van-Speyk corvette classes. A total of eight ships have now been built by the De Schelde Group in Flushing and have been operational since 1996. They are equipped for both anti-submarine and surface warfare roles. In addition they have both long and short range air defence systems. The ships have a helicopter deck which serves primarily to support anti- submarine helicopter operations. [re the Karel Doorman klasse is a replacement for the Kortenaer Klasse. The wolf class does not exist. The van Speyk klasse had been retired from service earlier (though not much)] F 827 Karel Doorman, F 828 Van Speijk, F 829 Willem Van Der Zaan, F 830 Tjerk Hiddes, F 831 Van Amstel, F 832 Abraham Van Der Hulst, F 833 Van Nes, F 834 Van Galen. This class is very close to an Oliver Hazard Perry Class Fast Frigate. Under armed in the gun department. It is faster, and more maneuverable, bur less hardware. An OHP has the same missile system basically, but also has a 76mm gun. [umm 3" is 76 mm....actually the dutch designation for the deck gun is an OTO Melara 76 mm] These are smaller frigates, most have been sold off to other countries. These are all that remain. These systems are very similar to the Oliver Hazard Perry class Fast Frigate, has more prevelent small bore guns on deck. [Actually these are from the Kortenaer klasse, an, according to dutch standards outdated design from midst 70's] F 823 Philips Van Almonde F 824 Bloys Van Treslong F 825 Jan Van Brakel F 826 Pieter Florisz ex Willem van der Zaan [cut] [Tromp Klasse command frigates] F 801 Tromp F 806 De Ruyter Length(O/A) 454' (138.4) Beam 48.6' (14.8m) [Imho the number of mistakes make the rest of his sources seem a whole lot less reliable...]
Freeper remark "…..Charles Beatty was a victim of the TWA800 crash. He was a Naval officer who worked for the Naval Air Missile Division. If anyone ever needed a motive for an air missile bombing of that flight, this was it! Someone in the nave wanted him dead. Was he going to expose someone or something? …."
11/6/00 Email from "TWA Flight 800" <firstname.lastname@example.org> to list member "…..
TWA Flight 800 - http://twa800.com …… Glen Schulze, a court recognized expert on Flight Data Recorders, has discovered that the Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB is missing 4 seconds of data. These 4 seconds are at the end of the tape and could contain vital information about what happened to Flight 800. …..Glen's summary of his detailed analysis is now available. After further peer review, Glen will make the detailed analysis available. ……"