TWA flight 800

[HereWeGoAgain]

It wouldnt surprise me one bit if it was covered up.
Could have been hushed just to keep the general public from panic. Or possibly it was an American missile that had been sold by our gov to a not so friendly group. And of course political reasons.

And I seem to remember a shitload of train derailments around 9/11 that were all called "accidents".

Nothing would surprise me.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Those numbers are right there for one of design variants.. In the table. You maybe just are not motivated to see it?

I see maximum range in the table, not altitude like the post said. You do realize max range and max effective altitude are two different things right? It takes more energy to go vertically than horizontally, see the difference in altitude vs. range here for SA-14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K34_Strela-3 4100 meters range, 2300 max engagement altitude.

So tell me again, where on that page does it mention altitude? Can you take a screen shot?

And since when is ANY weapons system like that revealed in public information?

So you are saying a basic infantry weapon that has been in service for four decades where tens thousands have been trained on its use (including the Afghans we sold it to) which would include knowing which types of targets can be effectively engaged, has secret performance parameters. Sure all these people we're training to use the weapon could shoot at higher planes, but in the interest of keeping it secret we're going to tell them all it can't.

Chasing your conclusion much?

We've got a Flight Data Recorder intially analyzed with 4 more seconds of data than what is public now. And multiple FOIA requests denied.

Who knows, weren't you the poster earlier in the thread making up flat-out lies about TWA800 going down on Iraqi Independence Day? You clearly throw out whatever pops in your head without taking the time to consider what you are saying.

On 22 November 2003, shortly after takeoff from Baghdad, Iraq, an Airbus A300 cargo plane owned by European Air Transport ("DHL") was struck on the left wing tip by a surface-to-air missile.

Congratulations, you've shown a missile can hit a plane when that plane is flying at an altitude at 8000 feet. That missile couldn't have hit TWA-800 at 13,800 feet either.

 

[JoeBlam]

This jackass with his half-page replies doesn't know dick about the subject or much of anything else....just a thread-jacker.....ignore him.

 

[Circe]

It wouldnt surprise me one bit if it was covered up.
Could have been hushed just to keep the general public from panic. Or possibly it was an American missile that had been sold by our gov to a not so friendly group. And of course political reasons.

And I seem to remember a shitload of train derailments around 9/11 that were all called "accidents".

Nothing would surprise me.

Probably rogue Saudis. That's what the planebombing on 9/11 was, after all.

But our government is bestest fwiendsies with the Evil Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, so they'd cover it up.

 

[flacaltenn]

Those numbers are right there for one of design variants.. In the table. You maybe just are not motivated to see it?

I see maximum range in the table, not altitude like the post said. You do realize max range and max effective altitude are two different things right? It takes more energy to go vertically than horizontally, see the difference in altitude vs. range here for SA-14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K34_Strela-3 4100 meters range, 2300 max engagement altitude.

So tell me again, where on that page does it mention altitude? Can you take a screen shot?

And since when is ANY weapons system like that revealed in public information?

So you are saying a basic infantry weapon that has been in service for four decades where tens thousands have been trained on its use (including the Afghans we sold it to) which would include knowing which types of targets can be effectively engaged, has secret performance parameters. Sure all these people we're training to use the weapon could shoot at higher planes, but in the interest of keeping it secret we're going to tell them all it can't.

Chasing your conclusion much?

We've got a Flight Data Recorder intially analyzed with 4 more seconds of data than what is public now. And multiple FOIA requests denied.

Who knows, weren't you the poster earlier in the thread making up flat-out lies about TWA800 going down on Iraqi Independence Day? You clearly throw out whatever pops in your head without taking the time to consider what you are saying.

On 22 November 2003, shortly after takeoff from Baghdad, Iraq, an Airbus A300 cargo plane owned by European Air Transport ("DHL") was struck on the left wing tip by a surface-to-air missile.

Congratulations, you've shown a missile can hit a plane when that plane is flying at an altitude at 8000 feet. That missile couldn't have hit TWA-800 at 13,800 feet either.

You've got SEVERAL serious problems here.. One is that I said Iraqi Independence Day and then corrected that to Iraqi Revolution Day --- which is INDEED on that date. Stop badgering me if you're not following along..

Another problem is that your relying on a public Wiki for what SHOULD STILL BE classified military information despite the fact that 1000s of have trained on these weapons..

And even then --- you are contradicting yourself when you quote the Strella - 3 maximum engagement altitude as 2300 meters -- when the open knowledge is that one of those hit a DHL cargo plane at 8000 ft.. (Math issue???) or are you just not past the point of believing everything you see on the web??

 

[flacaltenn]

This jackass with his half-page replies doesn't know dick about the subject or much of anything else....just a thread-jacker.....ignore him.

If he starts ignoring the facts and the obvious -- my saintly patience and manners will run out...

 

[JoeBlam]

This jackass with his half-page replies doesn't know dick about the subject or much of anything else....just a thread-jacker.....ignore him.

If he starts ignoring the facts and the obvious -- my saintly patience and manners will run out...

I've taken to giving him a headslap and laughing when he starts sobbing:

 

[KissMy]

The fuel tank explosion story was always bullshit....Kerosene (jet fuel) doesn't explode.

Can jet fuel explode

Any combustable can explode when givin the right condition. For example even small fiber from a corn mill in a containment can explode. So yes jet fuel can explode. For this condition you have to be aware of temputure ,volume, and the stade of fuel is it soild or gasous state or bolth, open air or containment. Yes jet fuel can explode under the right conditions.

I stand corrected.

Even so, "the right conditions" isn't in a vented fuel cell.

Jet-A has to be vaporized and put under tremendous pressure to burn in the jet engines.....Pressure that you're not going to get in a fuel cell.

The official story has been a crock since day one.

I thought it was a crock also. I know Jet-A has to get hot in a mostly empty tank in order to vaporize with enough oxygen to explode like that. I was thinking this jet was just topped off with a whole lot of cool fuel to make it to France & it did not have enough room in the tank for oxygen.

But today I came across the TWA 800 NTSB ACCIDENT REPORT that says the 12,890 gallon CWT tank that exploded only had about 100 gallons left in it & the jet had been running the auxiliary power unit (APU) and two of its three air conditioning packs operating for 2-1/2 hours until it departed. Those air conditioning packs are directly under the fuel tank & it was mid July so that little amount of fuel got real hot. It was vaporizing in a big empty tank of oxygen before it took off. The pilots were having electrical problems with fuel flow gages 2-1/2 minutes before the explosion. Then a 400Hz electrical short is picked up on the cockpit recorder 1/10th of a second before the recorder stopped.

So now I am not so sure their story is totally a crock of shit. But the 400hz could have been caused by the explosion. Since electricity travels almost a million times faster than sound it would have been recorded first.

 

[JoeBlam]

Can jet fuel explode

Any combustable can explode when givin the right condition. For example even small fiber from a corn mill in a containment can explode. So yes jet fuel can explode. For this condition you have to be aware of temputure ,volume, and the stade of fuel is it soild or gasous state or bolth, open air or containment. Yes jet fuel can explode under the right conditions.

I stand corrected.

Even so, "the right conditions" isn't in a vented fuel cell.

Jet-A has to be vaporized and put under tremendous pressure to burn in the jet engines.....Pressure that you're not going to get in a fuel cell.

The official story has been a crock since day one.

I thought it was a crock also. I know Jet-A has to get hot in a mostly empty tank in order to vaporize with enough oxygen to explode like that. I was thinking this jet was just topped off with a whole lot of cool fuel to make it to France & it did not have enough room in the tank for oxygen.

But today I came across the TWA 800 NTSB ACCIDENT REPORT that says the 12,890 gallon CWT tank that exploded only had about 100 gallons left in it & the jet had been running the auxiliary power unit (APU) and two of its three air conditioning packs operating for 2-1/2 hours until it departed. Those air conditioning packs are directly under the fuel tank & it was mid July so that little amount of fuel got real hot. It was vaporizing in a big empty tank of oxygen before it took off. The pilots were having electrical problems with fuel flow gages 2-1/2 minutes before the explosion. Then a 400Hz electrical short is picked up on the cockpit recorder 1/10th of a second before the recorder stopped.

So now I am not so sure their story is totally a crock of shit. But the 400hz could have been caused by the explosion. Since electricity travels almost a million times faster than sound it would have been recorded first.

Hmmmm.....sounds reasonable.

 

[flacaltenn]

Can jet fuel explode

Any combustable can explode when givin the right condition. For example even small fiber from a corn mill in a containment can explode. So yes jet fuel can explode. For this condition you have to be aware of temputure ,volume, and the stade of fuel is it soild or gasous state or bolth, open air or containment. Yes jet fuel can explode under the right conditions.

I stand corrected.

Even so, "the right conditions" isn't in a vented fuel cell.

Jet-A has to be vaporized and put under tremendous pressure to burn in the jet engines.....Pressure that you're not going to get in a fuel cell.

The official story has been a crock since day one.

I thought it was a crock also. I know Jet-A has to get hot in a mostly empty tank in order to vaporize with enough oxygen to explode like that. I was thinking this jet was just topped off with a whole lot of cool fuel to make it to France & it did not have enough room in the tank for oxygen.

But today I came across the TWA 800 NTSB ACCIDENT REPORT that says the 12,890 gallon CWT tank that exploded only had about 100 gallons left in it & the jet had been running the auxiliary power unit (APU) and two of its three air conditioning packs operating for 2-1/2 hours until it departed. Those air conditioning packs are directly under the fuel tank & it was mid July so that little amount of fuel got real hot. It was vaporizing in a big empty tank of oxygen before it took off. The pilots were having electrical problems with fuel flow gages 2-1/2 minutes before the explosion. Then a 400Hz electrical short is picked up on the cockpit recorder 1/10th of a second before the recorder stopped.

So now I am not so sure their story is totally a crock of shit. But the 400hz could have been caused by the explosion. Since electricity travels almost a million times faster than sound it would have been recorded first.

Flying out of hot places with the center tank empty happens 100000 times a year. You mean they never had a problem in Rihyad or Tahiti? Did FAA issue an advisory about APUs or forbid leaving hot places with the center tank empty? Don't think so...

It's only a 1/10 of second before the recorder "stopped" because the "released" FDRec data is now 4 seconds shorter than in the INTIAL public discussion of that data.

It's a 2nd plausible scenario -- except that the FAA actions to correct the problem don't match the diagnosis.. And in that case, the whole "witness disqualification" effort by the CIA to convince them they saw a smoke trail from a crippled airliner RISING several thousand feet in a few seconds before the BIG EXPLOSION --- doesn't make that much sense -- does it? A spark in proximity to the fuel tank would have had to explode something else to rupture the tank.

 

[Crackerman]

may have been shot down by a missile or missiles.

TWA Flight 800 crash not due to gas tank explosion, former investigators say

Jim Speer, an accident investigator at the time of the crash for the Airline Pilots Association, who sifted through the recovered wreckage in a hangar, said he discovered holes consistent with those that would be formed by a high-energy blast in the right wing. He requested it be tested for explosives. When the test came back positive, he said, he was "physically removed" from a room by two CIA agents.



Holy shit...

If true this could flatten "WHO CARES HILLARY". Maybe those of the left dont care to hear how an American President let fellow citizens be murdered without even trying to help and got a good nights rest too boot, but real Americans do.

 

[flacaltenn]

For those of FIRMLY convinced that the "conspiracy" nuts are wrong on this..

I need you watch the unguarded remarks of George Stephanopoulos on Sept 11 2001.. Just bear with it to the end of the clip.....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baVTV1c_oGU]George Stephanopoulos: The "bombing of TWA 800" (9/11 admission) - YouTube[/ame]

Realize also that John Kerrey TWICE made the same allusion to TWA 800 as a terrorist attack TWICE in the yrs following the incident..

 

[mamooth]

As for the conspiracy theories that fuel tanks can't explode like that ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_143
---
Shortly after pushback a powerful explosion in the center fuel tank pushed the cabin floor violently upwards.
---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Airways_International_Flight_114
---
was destroyed by an explosion of the center wing tank resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank while the aircraft was parked, pre-boarding, on the ground
---

Two cases of mostly empty center fuel tanks blowing up. Both while parked on the ground, with no missiles or bombs involved. And in both cases, the initial explosion damaged the aircraft and set it on fire, but did not destroy it completely.

Hence, the "A tank of jet fuel can't blow up like that!" theory is conclusively debunked.

Likewise, the "A center fuel tank explosion would have totally destroyed the aircraft!" theory is also conclusively debunked.

So, more nails in the conspiracy theory coffin. Still no missile shrapnel or high velocity bomb damage. The conspiracy theories are contradicted by the evidence, while the official theory agrees with all the evidence. The conspiracists are reduced to flailing around with vague memories about how someone supposedly saw a missile. Which left no missile shrapnel, as it was a magical missile.

 

[KissMy]

I stand corrected.

Even so, "the right conditions" isn't in a vented fuel cell.

Jet-A has to be vaporized and put under tremendous pressure to burn in the jet engines.....Pressure that you're not going to get in a fuel cell.

The official story has been a crock since day one.

I thought it was a crock also. I know Jet-A has to get hot in a mostly empty tank in order to vaporize with enough oxygen to explode like that. I was thinking this jet was just topped off with a whole lot of cool fuel to make it to France & it did not have enough room in the tank for oxygen.

But today I came across the TWA 800 NTSB ACCIDENT REPORT that says the 12,890 gallon CWT tank that exploded only had about 100 gallons left in it & the jet had been running the auxiliary power unit (APU) and two of its three air conditioning packs operating for 2-1/2 hours until it departed. Those air conditioning packs are directly under the fuel tank & it was mid July so that little amount of fuel got real hot. It was vaporizing in a big empty tank of oxygen before it took off. The pilots were having electrical problems with fuel flow gages 2-1/2 minutes before the explosion. Then a 400Hz electrical short is picked up on the cockpit recorder 1/10th of a second before the recorder stopped.

So now I am not so sure their story is totally a crock of shit. But the 400hz could have been caused by the explosion. Since electricity travels almost a million times faster than sound it would have been recorded first.

Flying out of hot places with the center tank empty happens 100000 times a year. You mean they never had a problem in Rihyad or Tahiti? Did FAA issue an advisory about APUs or forbid leaving hot places with the center tank empty? Don't think so...

It's only a 1/10 of second before the recorder "stopped" because the "released" FDRec data is now 4 seconds shorter than in the INTIAL public discussion of that data.

It's a 2nd plausible scenario -- except that the FAA actions to correct the problem don't match the diagnosis.. And in that case, the whole "witness disqualification" effort by the CIA to convince them they saw a smoke trail from a crippled airliner RISING several thousand feet in a few seconds before the BIG EXPLOSION --- doesn't make that much sense -- does it? A spark in proximity to the fuel tank would have had to explode something else to rupture the tank.

There was no need for another advisory because the FAA has had a standing rule for all aircraft manufacturers to assume that all aircraft fuel tanks contain explosive vapors. Boeing dealt with the FAA rule by keeping all electrical components out of fuel cells except for the necessary fuel indicator sensors which it made use low power to not spark inside the tank. The FAA & Boeing did not have a rule to separate the low power wires from the high power bundle.

I don't know anything about a 4 second longer recorder tape. Do you have a link?

The electrical problem 2-1/2 minutes before the explosion was on the low voltage fuel sensor circuit running inside the fuel tank. There was no need for something to rupture the tank, because the spark may have came from inside the tank. The tank would then act as a pressure vessel like the pressure cookers & pipe bombs used in the Boston bombing.

The witness accounts, Navy missle exercises, AWACS plane & NTSB investigators going rouge does still make it posible the info in the report is not correct. Perhaps the center tank was not empty, there was no electrical problem & the NTSB investigators were forced to lie. We need evidence & whistle blowers.

 

[flacaltenn]

As for the conspiracy theories that fuel tanks can't explode like that ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_143
---
Shortly after pushback a powerful explosion in the center fuel tank pushed the cabin floor violently upwards.
---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Airways_International_Flight_114
---
was destroyed by an explosion of the center wing tank resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank while the aircraft was parked, pre-boarding, on the ground
---

Two cases of mostly empty center fuel tanks blowing up. Both while parked on the ground, with no missiles or bombs involved. And in both cases, the initial explosion damaged the aircraft and set it on fire, but did not destroy it completely.

Hence, the "A tank of jet fuel can't blow up like that!" theory is conclusively debunked.

Likewise, the "A center fuel tank explosion would have totally destroyed the aircraft!" theory is also conclusively debunked.

So, more nails in the conspiracy theory coffin. Still no missile shrapnel or high velocity bomb damage. The conspiracy theories are contradicted by the evidence, while the official theory agrees with all the evidence. The conspiracists are reduced to flailing around with vague memories about how someone supposedly saw a missile. Which left no missile shrapnel, as it was a magical missile.

Obviously -- you didn't read thru the thread. Otherwise you wouldn't be repeating that "someone saw a missile".. To be exact -- it was a 154 witnesses citing a fast moving trail leading UP to the location of the plane.. Including the crew of a C-130 closest to the plane. And the CIA was hastily called in to construct a cartoon to convince all those witnesses, that they didn't see what they saw.

How many civil air investigations have had the CIA called in to produce simply flight tragectory analysis eh Mamooth?

What was the FAA actions required for 747s regarding the fuel tank??

Business & Technology | Years after fatal plane crash, fuel-tank safety still an issue | Seattle Times Newspaper

WASHINGTON — Nearly nine years after a fuel-tank explosion in a Boeing 747 caused the fatal crash of TWA Flight 800, safety officials say little has been done to reduce the flammability of vapors in aircraft fuel tanks.

The Federal Aviation Administration announced in February 2004 that it had found a filtering system — called fuel inerting — to make fuel vapors less likely to ignite. The agency said it would propose in fall 2004 a regulation requiring that such systems be installed on Boeing and Airbus jetliners.

But no rule has been proposed yet.

National Transportation Safety Board Executive Director Dan Campbell said yesterday that while much more is known about how to prevent fuel vapors from exploding, little has been done. "We're not significantly different than we were in '96," Campbell said.

Boeing and the FAA disagree. Both point to progress in designing safer systems, which are based on an FAA prototype, as well as plans to begin producing them next year.

FAA spokesman Greg Martin said the agency has moved aggressively to eliminate the factors that can cause jet-fuel vapors to explode: sparks or flames, and a deadly combination of concentrated oxygen and fuel.

"Although a rigid formal rulemaking process takes time, we've moved aggressively to remove both ignition sources and flammability levels," Martin said.

Boeing spokeswoman Liz Verdier said aircraft manufacturers are working to reduce fuel-tank explosions even though they're extremely unusual. "They're getting more and more rare because the industry constantly works on safety," Verdier said.

Campbell acknowledged that the FAA has reduced sources of ignition that can cause fuel-vapor explosions. The FAA has ordered airlines to make more than 60 changes to eliminate potential ignition sources, such as faulty wiring.

For the first 2 years after the crash, the FAA sided with the airlines that there were no changes neccessary other than increased wire inspections.

 

[SteadyMercury]

You've got SEVERAL serious problems here.. One is that I said Iraqi Independence Day and then corrected that to Iraqi Revolution Day --- which is INDEED on that date. Stop badgering me if you're not following along..

Iraq Revolution Day = July 14
TWA 800 = July 17

Would you like to make a 3rd try on the ever evolving "evidence" you keep enlightening us with?

Another problem is that your relying on a public Wiki for what SHOULD STILL BE classified military information despite the fact that 1000s of have trained on these weapons..

Hah hah I'm relying on? YOU posted that link to wiki then started quoting from it! Then it turned it never even mentioned altitude, you were making that shit up too.

And even then --- you are contradicting yourself when you quote the Strella - 3 maximum engagement altitude as 2300 meters -- when the open knowledge is that one of those hit a DHL cargo plane at 8000 ft.. (Math issue???) or are you just not past the point of believing everything you see on the web??

SA-14 Gremlin 9K34 Strela-3 man-portable missile technical data sheet specifications pictures*-*Army Recognition*-*Army Recognition

he SA-14 Gremlin has a maximum range of 4,500 meters, and a maximum altitude of 3,000 meters

 

[flacaltenn]

I thought it was a crock also. I know Jet-A has to get hot in a mostly empty tank in order to vaporize with enough oxygen to explode like that. I was thinking this jet was just topped off with a whole lot of cool fuel to make it to France & it did not have enough room in the tank for oxygen.

But today I came across the TWA 800 NTSB ACCIDENT REPORT that says the 12,890 gallon CWT tank that exploded only had about 100 gallons left in it & the jet had been running the auxiliary power unit (APU) and two of its three air conditioning packs operating for 2-1/2 hours until it departed. Those air conditioning packs are directly under the fuel tank & it was mid July so that little amount of fuel got real hot. It was vaporizing in a big empty tank of oxygen before it took off. The pilots were having electrical problems with fuel flow gages 2-1/2 minutes before the explosion. Then a 400Hz electrical short is picked up on the cockpit recorder 1/10th of a second before the recorder stopped.

So now I am not so sure their story is totally a crock of shit. But the 400hz could have been caused by the explosion. Since electricity travels almost a million times faster than sound it would have been recorded first.

Flying out of hot places with the center tank empty happens 100000 times a year. You mean they never had a problem in Rihyad or Tahiti? Did FAA issue an advisory about APUs or forbid leaving hot places with the center tank empty? Don't think so...

It's only a 1/10 of second before the recorder "stopped" because the "released" FDRec data is now 4 seconds shorter than in the INTIAL public discussion of that data.

It's a 2nd plausible scenario -- except that the FAA actions to correct the problem don't match the diagnosis.. And in that case, the whole "witness disqualification" effort by the CIA to convince them they saw a smoke trail from a crippled airliner RISING several thousand feet in a few seconds before the BIG EXPLOSION --- doesn't make that much sense -- does it? A spark in proximity to the fuel tank would have had to explode something else to rupture the tank.

There was no need for another advisory because the FAA has had a standing rule for all aircraft manufacturers to assume that all aircraft fuel tanks contain explosive vapors. Boeing dealt with the FAA rule by keeping all electrical components out of fuel cells except for the necessary fuel indicator sensors which it made use low power to not spark inside the tank. The FAA & Boeing did not have a rule to separate the low power wires from the high power bundle.

I don't know anything about a 4 second longer recorder tape. Do you have a link?

The electrical problem 2-1/2 minutes before the explosion was on the low voltage fuel sensor circuit running inside the fuel tank. There was no need for something to rupture the tank, because the spark may have came from inside the tank. The tank would then act as a pressure vessel like the pressure cookers & pipe bombs used in the Boston bombing.

The witness accounts, Navy missle exercises, AWACS plane & NTSB investigators going rouge does still make it posible the info in the report is not correct. Perhaps the center tank was not empty, there was no electrical problem & the NTSB investigators were forced to lie. We need evidence & whistle blowers.

Don't forget the unguarded remarks by Stephanopoulus and Kerrey. There's enough here to have Flt 800 conspiracy conventions larger than the Kennedy Assassination crew..

Govt CAUSES these conspiracies either by ineptness or arrogance. They made it APPEAR to be one or the other.. Being a huge believer in Govt incompetence, I don't go full samurai into conspiracy mode..

 

[flacaltenn]

You've got SEVERAL serious problems here.. One is that I said Iraqi Independence Day and then corrected that to Iraqi Revolution Day --- which is INDEED on that date. Stop badgering me if you're not following along..

Iraq Revolution Day = July 14
TWA 800 = July 17

Would you like to make a 3rd try on the ever evolving "evidence" you keep enlightening us with?

Another problem is that your relying on a public Wiki for what SHOULD STILL BE classified military information despite the fact that 1000s of have trained on these weapons..

Hah hah I'm relying on? YOU posted that link to wiki then started quoting from it! Then it turned it never even mentioned altitude, you were making that shit up too.

And even then --- you are contradicting yourself when you quote the Strella - 3 maximum engagement altitude as 2300 meters -- when the open knowledge is that one of those hit a DHL cargo plane at 8000 ft.. (Math issue???) or are you just not past the point of believing everything you see on the web??

SA-14 Gremlin 9K34 Strela-3 man-portable missile technical data sheet specifications pictures*-*Army Recognition*-*Army Recognition

he SA-14 Gremlin has a maximum range of 4,500 meters, and a maximum altitude of 3,000 meters

Now that we know each other so well....

Hey MORON !!!

Your quoting national holidays of the NEW IMPROVED IRAQ.. Not the Iraq under Saddam Hussein...

Iraq Charges Saddam Hussein in Massacre : NPR

The indictment of Saddam Hussein was announced yesterday, July 17th, a national holiday under his regime, celebrating the coup that brought the Baath Party to power in Iraq. Speaking at the Baghdad Convention Center, not far from the courtroom specially built for the trials of members of Saddam's former regime, the chief investigating judge of Iraq's special tribunal gave the brief but direct announcement.

Saddam made a fiery anti-American screed in public that day after TWA 800 went down.
It was the after July 17th --- the anniversary of his Bathe Party RISE TO POWER..

Now --- you can thank me for educating you or apologize or I can just harbor a long-term grudge for your insult.. Perhaps you ought to read the quote I chose for my footer...

 

[Trajan]

ok Buzzkillian

Then why are these guys, 17 years later they had all this evidence?

If it was the US Navy? yeah, it would have leaked and leaked quickly.

so that leaves other ships that may have been in the region.

possibly just a tragic accident

Look if you're n the fire control center of an Aegis cruiser or even a DD and you just shot down an airliner, dude everyone o that ship would know it...the firing of the missile, then a detonation, the fire on the water...., you think that could be kept secret?

how? they send everyone from the ship to the same Cheyene-cheney/fuhrer bunker where they have the passengers from the Pentagon flight


I cannot see that, at all...

ok, then what was the flare that was seen hitting the plane?

hundreds of eye witnesses, describing the same thing

weather balloon?


j/k..beats me...



*shrugs* but it wasn't a stinger or portable system of that model....

 

[Two Thumbs]

Look if you're n the fire control center of an Aegis cruiser or even a DD and you just shot down an airliner, dude everyone o that ship would know it...the firing of the missile, then a detonation, the fire on the water...., you think that could be kept secret?

how? they send everyone from the ship to the same Cheyene-cheney/fuhrer bunker where they have the passengers from the Pentagon flight


I cannot see that, at all...

ok, then what was the flare that was seen hitting the plane?

hundreds of eye witnesses, describing the same thing

weather balloon?


j/k..beats me...



*shrugs* but it wasn't a stinger or portable system of that model....

150+ people see a rocket, yet no one has talked.

Launched from a sub?

a dummy launch that turns out to not be the dummy?