TWA 800

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Greetings Saints in Jesus name!

My oldest sister sent this to me, and forwarded a similar article to what's
below.  I went out to DejaNews www site (http://www.dejanews.com) looking for 
what's been said lately about TWA 800.  I found what seems to be a little 
more complete (at least it has everything that my sister sent to me) and
then some.

My sister (who works for the American Chemical Society in D.C. - the ACS
is equivalent organization for Chemists and Physicists as the AMA is for 
Physicians) wrote this:

> The following email was sent to me last week.  I dismissed it as I was very
> skeptical that the military would keep anything like this a secret.  Then I
> had a meeting this weekend.  One of the chemists I was flying into the
> meeting was in that airplane that had a catastrophic engine failure over
> Colorado on friday.  You may have seen it in the news...everyone got out
> safely.  but the flight was a TWA.  When on the ground, my chemist was
> talking with the TWA pilot and the pilot's buddies.  They have pilot
> coleagues who are assigned to the TWA 800 investigation. And for a number
> of reasons, outlined below, and because some pieces of the wreckage are now
> missing from the airplane hangar where alll the evidence is gathered, these
> TWA pilots also are suspecting friendly fire.  Now the TWA guys are saying
> that all of this will come out once the investigative team knows beyond a
> shadow of a doubt that it was friendly fire, which happened because of
> certain reasons (which they are trying to piece together irrefutably). If
> they are withholding info now because they are trying to get their act
> together, I suspect that they want to be absolutely sure since they have
> American citizens plus the French gov't to deal with.

Reactions?  Input?  Output?  
Potential Urban Legend?   
Fact?  Fantasy?
Garbage-in, garbage-out?  What?

I really dunno what to think... I guess I wouldn't be
surprised either way if it's true or false because it's
drug on so long so far and people are just kinda numb
to it's news by now.

Bro. Tyler

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject:      TWA 800 ? An interesting Opinion
> From:         gizmo@atl.mindspring.com
> Date:         1996/09/29
> Message-Id:   <324ebc92.3139529@news.concentric.net>
> Sender:       aircargo@cris.com
> Reply-To:     gizmo@atl.mindspring.com
> Newsgroups:   misc.transport.air-Industry.cargo
> 
> **A friend sent this to me, I am passing it along only to create some
> conversation among this news group. Fact or fantasy?**
> 
> This is interesting.  For those of you who think the government is
> totally incompetent at everything except large conspiracies (much like
> the LAPD and OJ), think again.  I just received the following
> information via the wire.
> 
> Apparently, the source is a 747 Captain, but I don't know much more.
> His sources are reportedly reliable with inside information.  He has
> transmitted the information already to ABC News.  If this story is
> true (and the pieces do seem to fit), there is obviously a very tight
> cover-up in progress which would include our Commander in Chief.  Here
> is the story as it came across:
> 
> "TWA flight 800 was SHOT DOWN by a US NAVY AEGIS MISSILE fired from a
> guided missile ship which was in area W-105 about 30 miles from where
> TWA flight 800 exploded.  W-105 is a Warning Area off the southeast
> coast of Long Island and is used by the military for military
> operations including missile firing.  It is believed that, while W-105
> is a rather large area, budget constraints have dictated that missile
> firings be done closer to land so that the flight time for the P-3
> monitor and tracking aircraft can be reduced.
> 
> Guided missile ships conduct practice firings on a regular basis and
> Navy P-3 radar planes track and evaluate the missile shots with their
> onboard instrumentation.  A P-3 aircraft was on a southwest heading
> about over the top of TWA 800.
> 
> There was a USAir flight coming from the Southeast descending towards
> Providence, RI that had been cleared to 21,000 feet and Air Traffic
> Control (ATC) had determined that there would be a conflict.  As a
> result of the traffic conflict, the TWA flight was restricted to
> 13,000 feet. ATC then requested the USAir flight to turn on his
> landing lights.  If TWA could see his lights and identify him
> visually, the controller could safely clear the TWA flight to continue
> his climb.
> 
> The P-3 was SKIN PAINT, or a non-beacon target.  (This means that his
> transponder was turned OFF.  Transponders reply to ATC radar and show
> a well defined radar target on the controller's scope, complete with
> ID and altitude.
> 
> All civilian aircraft and airliners are required to fly with them when
> in controlled airspace.  A skin paint target probably would not even
> be visible to the controller.)  The P-3 made NO calls to ATC.  After
> the explosion, he continued his flight to the west and then called ATC
> and asked if they would like him to turn around and assist with the
> "accident".
> 
> You will remember that the first announcement about this accident came
> from the Pentagon.  The spokesman mentioned that they were sending the
> Navy to the crash site.  They immediately sent a Navy Captain, who was
> replaced the very next day by a one-star Admiral from Norfolk.  That
> admiral is still on the scene as of 8-23-96.  At least 5 Aegis
> destroyers are based in Norfolk.
> 
> The FBI has conducted about 3,000 eyewitness interviews and the NTSB
> has not been able to be a part of these interviews nor have they any
> access to the contents of them.  Some of those eyewitnesses reported
> seeing lights.
> 
> Those were probably the landing lights of the USAir plane.
> 
> The NTSB is there in name ONLY.  All announcement made by Mr. Bob
> Francis say absolutely nothing and notice that the FBI is always
> standing beside or behind Mr Francis and it would appear that his job
> is to make sure that nothing is said that would give away "THE BIG
> SECRET!"
> 
> Here is a list of the Aegis Destroyers based at Norfolk.....could one
> of them be the one which fired the fatal shot?....USS Ramage, USS
> Arligh Burke (DDG 51), USS Barry (DDG 52), USS Stout (DDG 55), USS
> Mitscher (DDG 57) and USS Laboon (DDG 58).  USS Ramage has a crew of
> 22 officers and 315 enlisted personnel."
> 
> That is the gist of the story......again he and his source wish to
> remain anonymous, but questions arise......how could they keep it
> quiet this long?
> 
> Certainly people in the P-3 and the Destroyer would talk?  Why keep it
> quiet when it is bound to come out, and can't be covered for ever?
> 
> But remember that this is an election year.  The Navy has had a very
> tough time in recent years and is very sensitive to its reputation.
> The aministration has dealt very harshly with it.  Generals and
> Admirals have been fired with little notice.
> 
> Sources which are very, very familiar with the 747 report that a
> mechanical cause is almost impossible, especially since the data and
> voice recorders give no information.  A mechanical or structural
> failure would have given some warning to the pilots if only a few
> seconds.  The primary cause had to be a large explosion.
> 
> The chemical traces found which are consistent with a bomb are also
> consistent with the explosive compounds used in military missiles.
> 
> Aegis missiles, unlike Stinger missiles and those likely to be used by
> a terrorist, are not heat seekers.  Thus, the recovery of intact
> engines do not explain away an Aegis missile hit.
> 
> The airplane would not be pressurized (at least not very much) at that
> low altitude.  Therefore, a small bomb in the cabin would likely not
> have such immediate catastrophic effect.  Large cargo hold bombs have
> all but been ruled out.
> 
> The pieces fit..... all except the reasons for the cover up.