MANPADS vs Standard: AppearanceOctober 15 2000 at 9:40 AM
|Rick Savage (Login Tannehill)|
from IP address 22.214.171.124
Ian Goddard is one of my favorite sources. The following quote is from
My question regarding the following quote: wouldn't this description rule out a MANPADS?
FACT 7: Satellite images also proved that a soph-
isticated guided missile tracked and hit TWA 800.
As the Times of London (07/22/96) reported:
An American spy satellite position-
ed over the Brookhaven National Lab-
oratory on Long Island is said to
have yielded important information
about the crash. A law enforcement
official told the New York Post
that the satellite pictures show
an object racing up to the TWA jet,
passing it, then changing course
and smashing into it.
About the spy satellite over the area, the Boston
Globe (07/24/96) reported: the satellite was pro-
bably the CIAs Satellite Data System II...equipped
with a long-range, high-resolution TV camera with
a sensor, known as the Heritage, that detects ob-
jects by the heat they emit.
The existence of such images was also confirmed in-
dependently by Newsday, which reported (09/01/96)
that the images show something rising, tracking to-
ward the plane, circling to the front of the plane
and then disappearing in the planes underbelly.
|You know who I am|
|October 15 2000, 12:49 PM |
Intriguing that, because it fits some of the witness statements very well.
What concerns me is, that knowing all this was already out in the public domain how could 'they' expect to deep-six the notion that it was a missile?
|October 15 2000, 3:31 PM |
It's called a cover-up, Trevor. The only questions are how deep, how wide, and why?
A couple of flaws here......
|October 15 2000, 4:55 PM |
You guys are killing me. All this talk of vertical launch missles and submarines and now the "satelite confirmation". What a hoot.
FYI, imaging satellites used by the US intelligence community are ORBITED not placed. A satellite could not be "positioned" over a particular spot. The only satelites than can be positioned are those in geo-stationary orbits at 22,300 miles.
"Spy" satellites are placed in very high inclination orbits (i.e. they pass over very high lattitudes). Their orbits are also very low, about 90-130 miles high. Consequently, they are only over any one particular spot for about 18 minutes. In order to guarantee satellite coverage of a missle test, this would be a MAJOR, MAJOR exercise and planned months in advance.
Now if it is an "Accidental Shootdown" by the NAVY during a systems test, that means that analysts from the National Reconaisance Office (NRO), the US Navy, the Department of Defense, the contractors(no tests of experimental weapons are ever conducted without the contractors in the loop), the FBI, the NTSB were ALL complicit in the coverup.
Think about that for a few days......then come up with a better conspiracy.
|October 15 2000, 10:11 PM |
The CIA video released by the FBI on Nov. 18, 1997 says: "The fuel's subsequent ignition and blaze produced a dramatic cascade of flames, visible to eyewitnesses more the 40 miles away, and detected by an infrared sensor aboard a U.S. satellite."
So arguing that a satellite would probably not happen to be there at that time is meaningless, for it seems there was a satellite over the area at the time of the crash.
Couple of flaws revisited........
|October 16 2000, 2:16 AM |
Mr Alexander: A few verifiable facts seem to have placed your "couple of flaws here" rationale in jeopardy. And your
intimate knowledge of the in's and out's of "spy satellites"
and their various orbits, geo-stationary or otherwise could
lead some to question where this expertise was acquired, and
why it is being dissiminated as dis-information.
Verifiable Fact #1. NFOB provided the link for verification of
Vertical Launch Capability in Los Angeles class submarines.
Verifiable Fact #2. I provided documentation of the Seawolf class of submarine's planned utilization in "littoral" warfare, i.e. shallow water, as well as the completion in early July, 1996, of sea-trials of the Seawolf herself; and Groten, Connecticut, home of the Electric Boat Co., her builder, is just a few miles (as the boat floats)up the coast from Long Island Sound.
Verifiable Fact #3. James Kalstrom and the US Navy both confirmed that submarines and/or "significant naval units" were
"engaged in classified maneuvers" that night.
Verifiable Fact #4. Tom Shoemaker and James D. Sanders independently arrived at documentation of a MAJOR, MAJOR exercise
known as GLOBAL YANKEE 96 taking place. (Which, I agree, must have taken "months of advance planning.)
Verifiable Fact #5. Rick Savage provides links to documentation of Whiskey 105 being activated at the time of the shoot-down, and Ian Goddard's graphic illustrates the extent of maritime activity di-di-mauing to the south without rendering assistance in a disaster in violation of several Maritime Laws.
Verifiable Fact #5. Commander Donaldson has de-bunked the volatility of JetA 1 fuel and the explosiveness of a empty fuel tank/phantom micro-milli-joule spark combination as the initiating event claimed by the NTSB/FBI.
Verifiable Fact #6. If Jim Sanders' civil lawsuit against the federal government survives the intensive attacks of desperate officials in fear of loss of their careers or their freedom and is heard by a jury and covered by a objective press, then the acts of government lawlessness in the "red residue" affair and the coverup of government culpability in the shoot-down will be exposed.
Verifiable Fact #7. I don't want to appear to be picking on Bob Donaldson, but in another post,in reply to Savages defense of Jim Sanders, he said no one had seen Sanders evidence. Fact. He is wrong. I have seen it. Thousands of people, including large groups of TWA employees, current and retired, as well as FAA and other pilot organizations have been attendant at meetings all over the country where Jim has presented compelling evidence of a "'Accidental Shootdown' by the NAVY during a systems test"
And YES, Mr Alexander, that means that the National Reconaisance Office (NRO), the US Navy, the Department of Defense, the contractors in the loop, the FBI, the NTSB, plus the Justice? Department and "mainstream media", were and continue to be,ALL complicit in the coverup. Some as shills, some as pimps, and some as criminals.
In reality, Mr Alexander, it's pretty much a no-brainer, so a few days thought on the subject isn't necessary.....you CAN'T come up with a better conspiracy.
And that's a fact.
|October 16 2000, 2:31 AM |
Your timely and insightful fact, using the CIA/FBI "cartoon"
as documentation for the satellite scoffed at by Mr.
Alexander, inadvertantly became entangled in a "senior
moment" sponsored by my Oldtimers Disease. I pray you
will overlook my omission. It was not intentional, I assure
I think you misunderstand my intent.........
|October 16 2000, 9:42 AM |
My knowledge of satelite orbits, and everything else that I know about this subject, has been gleaned from reading publicly available materials. My purpose in posting is NOT to advance a particular theory but to pose serious questions to ANYONE who is advocating a particular scenario.
The evidence collected and analyzed by Cmdr. Donaldson is overwhelming and convincing. TWA800 was shot down. The NTSB's stated cause of the "accident" is a coverup. But a coverup of what? This site does not ADVOCATE a particular theory. Yes, the terrorist missle attack is indicated as the MOST LIKELY. However, Cmdr. Donaldson will readily admit that the evidence for the missle origins is incomplete.
All I am doing is pointing out some of the obvious inconsistencies of the theories being ADVOCATED by posters.
I have no quarrel with your stated Facts #'s 1-4. "Fact" number 5 is a little harder to fully digest. you have no proof (that I have seen) that any of the boats headed south actually knew of the disaster.
IMO, Fact #6 is the lynchpin of this entire sordid affair. This is a hard, cold fact, tested, tried and unrefuted. But it does NOT tell you who fired the missle. When all of the other FACTS pass the same test as this one, then and only then will the source of the missles be found.
The last 2 Facts are shrouded in a "who said what" controversy.
It is my opinion that the large number of people who would have been witness to this "Accidental Shootdwon" theory, would be too large to coverup as succesfully as has been done. IMO, only a US Navy hunt for a terrorist missle team followed by a US Navy, NTSB, FBI coverup is really plausible AT THIS TIME. Until more cold hard FACTS(such as the Jet-Fuel demo) are established we will not know what happened.
Re: "Navy hunt for terrorist missile team"
|October 16 2000, 1:53 PM |
I'm glad you brought that up, because that was my next target.
Lets put 1 and 1 together and see what we come up with. Kallstrom admitted to several surface vessels on classified operations off Long Island. The Navy places 2 or more L.A.-class 688's in the same area. What can we conclude from those revelations?
We can conclude that the subs and the surface vessels were acting together in the same operation. Why? Because you don't have two separate operations going on in the same area at the same time. That is a recipe for disaster, so it isn't plausible. So if the Navy were hunting terrorists, why would it send subs to the area? Subs can't intercept missiles or search the surface for suspicious small boats. All they could do was get in the way of cruisers patrolling the coast and maneuvering for an intercept shot. The subs would be nothing but underwater collision hazards for the cruisers, therefore dispatching them to the area makes no sense whatsoever under the "Failed Terrorist Missile Intercept" scenario.
The presence of subs proves that the nature of the classified operations off Long Island was NOT to hunt for terrorists. Therefore, it must have had some other purpose. What was that purpose? At this point we can only speculate. But the presence of L.A.-class 688's proves that this was either a test mission gone bad or an intentional intercept. The presence of subs alone disproves the notion that the Navy was hunting terrorists off L.I. that night.
And without the "Failed Terrorist Missile Intercept" scenario, there is no way for ARAP to explain the damage to the nose of FL800. And with no way to explain that damage, the entire MANPADS scenario falls apart.
Therefore, one has to conclude that the FL800 shoot-down was either a test gone bad or an intentional engagement by US Navy forces.
And ARAP has stood on its head trying not to seriously consider either one.
It's long past time for that to change.
|October 16 2000, 2:01 PM |
I suppose the "Terrorists with MANPADS in Scuba Gear" scenario will be ARAP's next theory.
Again, you're jumping the gun a little bit.......
|October 16 2000, 2:40 PM |
Your argument against the "Terrorist Missle Hunt" is presupposing that all of the data you are claiming concerning the US Navy is correct. That data has NOT been subjected to the tests of truthfulness like the Jet-Fuel tests and a great deal of the other data found on this site.
The idea that the US MIlitary would conduct live-fire tests of an untried weapons system in this busy air corridor is LUDICROUS!I find this level of stupidity unbelievable.
I believe that Cmdr. Donaldson has established, and the data confirms it, that 2 missles were fired within 10 miles of the Long Island shoreline. Almost everyone who reads this site agrees with these basic facts.
I could probalby twist your information to suggest that the military exercise was a cover for a covert hunt for Iranian Tango class submarines that were firing heat seeking missles at US aircraft in the region.
1. Iran has the submarines (purchsed from Russsia in the mid 90s).
2. LA class submarines are PRIMARILY subhunters.
3. P-3 Orions (like the one under TWA800 when it exploded) are used in sub detection.
4. The destroyer sighted inshore could have been used as an ASW platform.
All of these pieces of information tell me that a sub-hunt was in progress. However, I am just speculating. I don't have the EVIDENCE of this. We don't have all of the information and we don't have the assistance of the FBI or the US Navy to help clarify this. We could speculate endlessly on what happened but the only TRUTH will come by establishing irrefutable FACTS.
|October 16 2000, 3:35 PM |
There's a deal of stuff in there which I would support, most especially the live-fire exercise in such a location. War games are war games, but there are ways of practising this stuff without loosing off the real thing.
The Jet-A fuel tests too, I find that a good argument, not that I know anything about the subject, but when someone (CBD) puts his kneck on the line and says 'not so', can't happen, then you expect someone to come along and prove him wrong. Regrettably perhaps they've chosen to ignore his challenges, and from what I've seen they've not actually shown it can happen in real life. Sure they've given numbers and figures, but if these figures add up to diddly squat it should be within the means and expertise of the ntsb to deliver the goods.
Having said that, there are a few practical tests I could have suggested that may well produce the desired result, but they know that too.
>>>I believe that Cmdr. Donaldson has established, and the data confirms it, that 2 missles were fired within 10 miles of the Long Island shoreline. Almost everyone who reads this site agrees with these basic facts.<<<
I'm not sure that this is completely sound, there's a deal of information which might suggest that this is so, but data is a very loose word. A witness statement is data, false testimony is data, anomalous radar returns are data.
Let me stress, I have followed this site since it's inception, and I find the information and physical analysis compelling and very plausible. Having said that, I remain to be convinced that such a massive exercise in deception is justified or practical.
We will now pause for a short refrain whilst I am accused of being gullible and naive, being British I can be forgiven for my innocence in the matter of gangster politics etc etc.
Are you seriously suggesting that any hostile nation would sail a submarine into those waters in order to take out a US carrier on its own territory when a zillion much safer venues exist for such action? The risks of detection alone make this a fantastic scenario, detection would have led to a massive and immediate retaliation and whilst it may make a few hostile nations jump up and down with glee, noone in their right mind is gonna consider nor get away with it - I hope.
What happened earlier this week proves this, there are much easier targets, many more places where these people can wreak havoc, and without the risk.
Maybe I lack imagination, but that one is beyond my comprehension.
Terrorists with Manpads is one thing, Terrorists with boat-mounted larger missiles is not beyond belief, but this one is a bridge too far in my opinion. Maybe you're right, maybe I do lack the imagination.<sigh>
Not this time, chief. You are.
|October 16 2000, 3:39 PM |
The info. regarding the 688's in the "immediate vicinity" and Kallstroms' surface vessels on classified ops. have both been confirmed. Check your facts. That's not is dispute. Ask ARAP.
As far as the Iranian tango-class sub launching heat-seeking missiles, that is the most implausible theory to date. An Iranian heat-seeking SUBSAM? Get serious. Or did the tango-class sub have to surface to launch one from its deck? How could they coordinate such an attack with another surface shooter? If the Iranians were bringing in heavy equipment, why bother with dinky MANPADS? If they were that serious, they could've just shot an SA-6 off the deck of a freighter. Is Iran willing to risk war with the US to take down one civilian airliner? A tango-class sub can't just disappear from all of those US assets in the area.
ARAP has been pushing the MANPADS-weilding terrorists on small boats theory, or haven't you been paying attention? Not the Iranian tango-class sub theory. That's because it's completely implausible.
Both the accidental US Navy engagement and the intentional engagement scenarios have one major advantage over all others. They fit all of the eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. None of the other theories do. And yours falls a bit short of target on plausibility.
Where did that Iranian sub go? Why didn't the Navy blow it out of the water, especially after it surfaced to fire a heat-seeking missile? It would've been a sitting duck.
You're the one jumping the gun now, chief.
|October 16 2000, 4:47 PM |
Who are you replying to here? Surely not me, I thought I blew the hostile submarine out of the water..!
In fact, I thought it was a measured and neutral position I took, hoping that noone would dump on me..
Maybe I'm getting soft....
|October 16 2000, 4:48 PM |
James Kallstrom said that no US vessels in the area of the crash had the capability to shoot down an airplane.
Apparently, even ARAP didn't believe him since it has been pushing the "Failed Terrorist Missile Intercept" scenario.
How do you intercept a SAM without a SAM of your own?
So if we agree that Kallstrom was lying about that fact, then what was he hiding?
|October 16 2000, 4:51 PM |
Sorry, Trevor, you were the victim of friendly-fire.
You posted a response while I was composing one.
Apologies, old chap.
See how easily things like that can happen?
|October 16 2000, 5:26 PM |
I knew it, you do have a sense of humour, and yes:
I DID ******* DUCK....!
I take your last point
|October 16 2000, 5:48 PM |
No, I have a sense of humor. Get your English straight.
|October 16 2000, 7:08 PM |
Can anyone answer my original question on this thread: "My question regarding the following quote: wouldn't this description rule out a MANPADS?"
"The idea that the US MIlitary would conduct live-fire tests of an untried weapons system in this busy air corridor is LUDICROUS!I find this level of stupidity unbelievable."
The first point is that according to Jim Sanders, this was NOT an untried weapons system. The CEC was in its last phase of testing -- with rave reviews up to that point. This particular operation was part of its FINAL testing before combat certification. Supposedly, this testing required the kind of clutter found off of Long Island.
In a sense, this was not "live fire" according to Sanders - the warhead on the first missile was inert. The second missile was armed because it was a "back stop" missile trying to take out the first missile -- that had gone astray. The "3rd" missile (which was really the first) was a target drone.
Bryan, were you ever in the military? Are you very familiar with military decisions? Personally, I think you're giving them too much credit. Also, I think that President Clinton has done some things that most humans would think ludicrous -- and he, probably, would have been the one to authorize this exercise. Perhaps, he even chose the site. Consider his raid on the Sudanese aspirin factory.
Re: CEC Test
|October 17 2000, 1:36 AM |
Couple of problems, Rick/Tannehill.
1) Sanders' accounts shouldn't be taken as gospel.
2) The military could create its own "air clutter" in a more remote (and safer) location in a final test phase of CEC to simulate a littoral environment with military aircraft acting as civies with transponders and all.
3) Even an inert missile would be very hazardous to launch in such a busy air corridor, and the "backstop" interceptor doesn't sound right. If such a test were to occur, the Navy could put self-destruct devices on the missiles (like NASA does) in case they went haywire. Just a push of a button and they would go kablooey.
However, there were reports of a target drone (remember the misfaxed photos of a FireBee <sp>) and the cruise missile photo taken at Dockers restaurant. So the possibility of a CEC test cannot be ruled out. Especially since there were "classified ops." going on and naval assets in the area. Also, that scenario is consistent with the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony (unlike the MANPADS scenario). Therefore, it cannot be ruled out at this time.
But personally I agree with Bryan in one sense. That such a test in that area would be grossly negligent under any conditions. That is one reason why I believe that what happened that night was not a mishap.