Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

TWA 800: The FACTS

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Ian Goddard

unread,

Nov 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/24/97

Widespread media reports originating from
CNN claiming that I admitted my investigation
of the TWA 800 Navy-missile theory was a hoax
are a hoax. I never said that. My inquiry has
been honest and I have at all times stood by
the truthfulness of my reports. As all can see,
my TWA 800 reports are meticulously referenced
research documents filled with facts, the mean-
ing of which you are free to decide for your-
self. This short reports make a case that no
rational person would reject prior to review
or could easily dismiss after careful review.

Read this reports and then ask yourself: why has
the government and the mass media conducted
a year-long effort to portray it as a hoax?

T W A F L I G H T 8 0 0

A N D

F A C T S P E R T A I N I N G T O

U S N A V Y C U L P A B I L I T Y

By Ian Williams Goddard

Contents:

I. MILITARY CULPABILITY
II. WITNESS REPORTS
III. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

I. MILITARY CULPABILITY

FACT 1: July 17th breaking news reports, rarely to
resurface, stated that naval maneuvers were being
conducted off-shore near the explosion of TWA flight
800, which killed 230 people around 8:31 PM, EDT.

FACT 2: Confirming early reports, TWA 800 exploded
near the naval warning zones W-105 and W-107, both
of which were activated for military maneuvers on
the night of the explosion. The professional avia-
tion publication Aerospace Daily (08/28/96) reports:

[ Area W-105 ] is designed to keep
aircraft departing New York safely
north of any military activity...

FAA sources and the Navy acknowledged
yesterday...that the area known as
Whiskey 105, or W-105, was activated
at the time of the TWA accident...

The New American (10/14/96) reports that the FAA's
"Warning and Restricted Areas Information Log" shows
that nearby W-107 was also activated at the same time.

FACT 3: The Airman's Information Manual (3:33) states
that the hazards of Warning Areas are to be considered
the same as those of Restricted Areas. The Manual (3:32)
defines the hazards of Restricted Areas as follows:

[Restricted Areas] denote the existence
of unusual, often invisible, hazards
to aircraft, such as artillery firing,
aerial gunnery, or guided missiles.

FACT 4: At a Department of Defense press conference
on July 23, 1996, DoD spokesman Kenneth Bacon said:

I'm not aware [that] there were any
military exercises in the area. I've
been told by the Joint [Chiefs of]
Staff that there were not.

However, after eight months of such denials, on March
22, 1997, Newsday reported that the Navy finally ad-
mitted that there were (a) military exercises and (b)
three Navy submarines in the area at the time of the
TWA 800 accident. While U.S. submarines are not known
deploy antiaircraft missiles, the Discovery Channel's
program "Sharks of Steel" (06/09/97) stated that:

The submarine has always been shrouded
in secrecy... its capabilities undis-
closed, unseen, unheard, undiscussed.

Considering (a) that many witness accounts suggest
that a submarine could have been the source of the
"skyrocket" seen to hit TWA 800, (b) that there were
three submarines offshore at the time, and (c) that
the capabilities of submarines are top secret, if
a sub-launched SAM did hit TWA 800, the Navy could
not admit it due to "national security" issues
pertaining to top-secret Navy capabilities.

FACT 5: Not only were military zones next to TWA 800
activated, but TWA 800 changed its course to avoid the
activated military zones only moments before a missile
was seen streaking toward and hitting TWA 800. As the
NBC program Unsolved Mysteries (04/04/97) put it:

Military exercises were being con-
ducted off the Long Island coast on
the night of the crash. In fact, TWA
800 diverted from its original flight
path to avoid a restricted area.

This clearly indicates that there was awareness of
some threat to the safety of TWA 800 imposed by its
proximity to the activated military zones. With these
preconditions, is it a big surprise that a military
missile flies out of the area and hits TWA 800?

FACT 6: Radar detected an object merging into TWA
flight 800 before the explosion. As the Associated
Press (07/19/96) reported:

Radar detected a blip merging with
the jet shortly before the explo-
sion, something that could indi-
cate a missile hit.

However, Pentagon officials, asking the AP not to re-
veal their names, condemned the blip as "spurious."
Radar and satellite-image evidence remains concealed.

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 CIA's 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 plane's underbelly."

It's hard to imagine what more proof of a missile
hit, and by default of a cover-up, would be needed.
Unfortunately the FBI keeps all the radar and sat-
ellite images hidden. They also rounded up all
the negatives of key photographs taken that night.

FACT 8: A few miles to the north, and within a few
minutes, of the TWA 800 crash, Linda Kabot took a
photograph of what appears to be a Tomahawk cruise
missile flying low over Southampton only a few yards
from the ocean. It is possible that such as cruise
missile may have been the intended drone, or test
target, for the missile that many saw hit TWA 800.
In fact, The Independent (07/24/96) of East Hampton
reported that witnesses saw a "smaller plane" fly-
ing near TWA 800 around the time of the crash.

The image to the left is the object Ms. Kabot photo-
graphed. The object to the right is an exact scaled
3D model of a Tomahawk cruise missile I made, placed
at an identical point of view. It's quite obvious.

Missile defense against incoming ballistic and cruise
missiles is the latest "arms race." If there were mis-
sile test firings in the area reserved for military op-
erations off the NY coast, it would likely be part of
the anticruise-missile missile tests. If so, and if
the intended cruise drone was missed but TWA 800 hit,
then a stray cruise missile should be observed flying
out of that zone. Such a cruise missile was observed.

Not only is there photographic evidence but there are
eyewitness reports of what fits a Cruise-Missile pro-
file to a tee: The Boston Globe (07/24/96), which
states that in addition to seeing "a brilliant flare-
like glow that streaked toward the plane," witnesses
also gave "reports of a low-flying aircraft without
lights cruising off shore." That fits a CM profile.

For further analysis of the Kabot photo.
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm

FACT 9: Only hours after the crash, investigative
sources stated that "The leading theory is that the
airliner was destroyed by a...anti-aircraft missile"
(Reuters, 07/18/96). Yet White House spokesman Mike
McCurry attacked those in-the-know, saying, "There's
no American official with half a brain that ought
to be speculating on anything of that nature."

FACT 10: Some residents were not surprised by the
massive explosion of TWA 800 because military oper-
ations in the area are not unusual. As the East
Hampton, New York paper The Independent (07/24/96)
learned from a South Beach resident, John Bauman,
"people continued fishing" after the blast think-
ing it was probably "the Westhampton Air Force
Base doing some kind of testing offshore."

FACT 11: The Jerusalem Post (07/21/96) says French
Defense Ministry agents believe that flight 800 was
shot-down by a Navy missile. While many victims were
from France, French investigators have been, in vio-
lation of routine international protocol, prohibited
from assisting the FBI-NAVY-NTSB secret investigation.

FACT 12: The St. Louis Post Dispatch (11/09/96) inter-
viewed TWA pilots who "said members of the crash invest-
igation committee and sources in the Pentagon had told
them that wreckage supported the Navy missile theory."
Consistent with an AP report (09/23/96), one TWA pilot
of 20 years said investigators found a hole going in
the plane believed to be caused by a Navy missile.
One pilot told the St. Louis Post Dispatch:

"At least nine out of 10 pilots will
tell you they believe this was a
missile. We know of military prac-
tices where they will lock (missile
systems) onto commercial aircraft
for testing, but then do not deto-
nate the missile."

The pilots told the Post that the evidence indicates
that "people who had information concerning the explos-
ion, including those who reported seeing a missile,
had been pressured to remain silent." A pilot said:

"[Investigators] know what a missile
looks like. They're trained to recog-
nize them. How come they talked once
and haven't said anything since?"

The Workers World News Service (09/19/96) reported
that many TWA and airport workers blame the Navy.

FACT 13: Former United Airlines pilot and crash invest-
igator Richard Russell learned via inside connections
that TWA 800 was hit by a Navy missile in the course
of test firings. His report was widely condemned and
anyone who even considers it, such as former reporter
Pierre Salinger, has been viciously smeared and labl-
ed as mentally imbalanced, even as key information
in his report is consistent with known facts and with
events reported by dozens of witnesses. The only case
against the report is: the Navy denies the charges.

FACT 14: Exactly as Captain Russell's report stated,
a P-3 Orion near TWA 800 and a guided-missile ship
were working together. The Discovery Channel's pro-
gram on the TWA 800 investigation (11/17/96) said:

The Navy had a P-3 and a guided
missile carrier in the area on
some kind of exercise.

It's hard to imagine how else a guided-missile ship
would be relating to a far point in the sky--the P-3
near TWA 800--apart from some exercise involving the
firing of missiles at or near that point, which is
exactly what Captain Russell reported (08/22/96).

FACT 15: WCBS-TV of New York reported (09/05/96) that
information leaked from the top-secret crash invest-
igation indicates that TWA 800 was shot-down by a
Navy missile. Top officials condemned the idea as
totally absurd and a sign of mental imbalance.

FACT 16: When asked if the area TWA 800 exploded is
used as a missile testing area, at a news conference
(11/08/96), Navy Admiral Edward Kristensen said the
area is "not typicality used for missile training."
While also saying he is not aware of tests ever oc-
curing in the area, he did not deny that they do.

FACT 17: While the region was activated for maneuvers,
a Navy spokesmen claimed Navy ships were too far away
to have hit TWA 800 with a missile, but then in his
next breath he makes a claim proven to be false re-
garding naval weapons capabilities in the area. The
Associated Press (11/08/96) reported this:

Lt. Cmdr. Rob Newell, a Navy spokes-
man...said...an Aegis-type missile
cruiser, was 185 miles to the south...
[and that] the only aircraft in the
area was a P-3 Orion anti-submarma-
rine plane, which he said does not
carry missiles. But the military
reference, Janes All The World’s
Aircraft, states the P-3 is cap-
able of carrying missiles.

While the P-3 is not a likely suspect, it would
seem that the Navy is being less than forthright
when a full accounting of missile capabilities
in the area is of the utmost necessity.

FACT 18: The Navy claims it's guided missile cruiser,
at 185 miles south, was too far for a missile strike.
That is false: the Standard Missile 2 Block IV, with
a range of over 200 miles is capable of covering this
distance, and the USS Normandy deployed the SM-2(IV).

II. WITNESS REPORTS

FACT 19: Witnesses saw a missile-like object shoot
up from the ocean, possibily from a boat, initi-
ating the TWA explosion. According to eyewitness
Lou Desyron (ABC World News Sunday, 07/21/96):

We saw what appeared to be a flare
going straight up. As a matter of
fact, we thought it was from a boat.
It was a bright reddish-orange color.
...once it went into flames, I knew
that wasn't a flare.

Paul Runyan told the N.Y. Daily News, 11/09/96:

It looked like a big skyrocket go-
ing up, and it kept going up and
up, and the next thing I knew
there was an orange ball of fire.

FACT 20: The St. Louis Post Dispatch (07/18/96) re-
ported that, while on his boat, "Victor Fehner won-
dered who was shooting flares in the sky...THEN he
saw the flash overhead and watched a fireball that
grew larger and larger..." (emphasis added).

FACT 21: Sven Faret, piloting a private plane with
passenger Ken Wendell, saw a "pin flash of light"
near the shore below TWA 800 seconds before it ex-
ploded. Sven told me that the flash looked "like a
rocket launch at a fireworks display." Sven's first
impression was that "the National Guard...shot down
one of their own planes." For more detail:
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/sven.htm

FACT 22: Over 100 eyewitness reported seeing this
rocket streaking toward TWA 800 just before it ex-
ploded. As The Washington Times (07/24/96) states:

Several witnesses...saw a bright,
flare-like object streaking toward
the jumbo jet seconds before it
blew up. ABC News said yesterday
that the investigators had more
then 100 eyewitness accounts sup-
porting the [ missile ] theory.

FACT 23: Witnesses noted the existence of an
exhaust trail indicative of a solid-fuel missile.
Newsday (09/01/96) reported that Roland Penney along
with many family members witnessed a "pencil-thin
white trail rising up...that hit that plane."

FACT 24: Missile witnesses were highly credible and
gave uniform accounts. The New York Post (09/22/96):

Law-enforcement sources said the
hardest evidence gathered so far
overwhelmingly suggests a surface
-to-air missile...

The FBI interviewed 154 "credible"
witnesses -- including scientists,
schoolteachers, Army personnel and
business executives -- who described
seeing a missile heading through the
sky just before TWA 800 exploded.

"Some of these people are extremely,
extremely credible," a top federal
official said.

FBI technicians mapped the various
paths -- points in the sky where the
witnesses said they saw the rising
"flare-like" object -- and determined
that the "triangulated" convergence
point was virtually where the jumbo
jet initially exploded.

FACT 25: The witnesses said the "streak of light"
hit the plane. The New York Times (07/19/96):

[ Witnesses reported ] a "streak
of light" hitting the plane just
before it blew up.

The St Louis Post Dispatch (07/19/96) states:

The officials say the strongest
indications suggesting this pos-
sibility are witness reports of
a "streak of light" hitting the
plane just before it exploded.

Roland Penney (Newsday, 09/01/96) said that the
"thin white line... hit that plane."

FACT 26: Two National Guard pilots in the area also
saw the streak. CNN News Interactive (11/08/96):

...the 106th Rescue Wing based at
Gabfbreski Air National Guard Sta-
tion at Westhampton, New York, said:

"The two helicopter pilots...Major
Frederick Meyer, the pilot, and Cap-
tain Cristian Baur, the co-pilot,
both saw a streak of light, moving
from east to west prior to the ini-
tial explosion."

At first Major Meyer said it was a missile, but
then he changed his story saying it looked more
like a shooting star (Times of London, 07/22/96).

FACT 27: Not unlike a guided heat-seeking missile,
witnesses reported that the missile curved across
space prior to the hit, leaving a trail of smoke
along its path. The New York Times (07/19/96):

Paul Angelides, who lives in West
Hampton Beach...saw what he describ-
ed as a "red meteor with a smoke
tail" that followed the course like
the outline of "a parabola" [curve].

[ Major ] Meyer...told reporters
that he saw an arch of light mov-
ing moving toward the plane.

He said, "Almost immediately there-
after I saw in rapid succession a
small explosion and then a larger
explosion."

The fact that some witnesses reported seeing the
missile fly straight up and some saw it curve, is
is a logical result of different points of view.

It's impossible to fathom why it is that the missile
theory is said publicly by the FBI to be on an equal
footing with the bomb and mechanical-failure theories,
both of which, unlike the missile theory, are said to
have "no supporting evidence." How is the witness of
over 150 people and radar equal to no evidence ??!!

III. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-core.htm

*******************************************************************
Visit Ian Williams Goddard ------> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
___________________________________________________________________

Oddwell

unread,

Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97

Ian Goddard <igod...@erols.com> (Ian Goddard) wrote:

>>Snip<<

> Read this reports and then ask yourself: why has
> the government and the mass media conducted
> a year-long effort to portray it as a hoax?

Year long? They only said it was a hoax after your recent retraction.
You say it was based on an incorrect reading of your statement, and I
see no reason to doubt you. But if you read the following statement
written by you, one has to wander.

And I might ask why you changed your mind again? (see below):

>> Ian Goddard's Internet message (10/20/97)__________________

>> I think it was a big mistake to encourage people to
>> believe the Navy did it. How could I know? I just
>> wanted to give the govt a black eye by any means
>> that looked opportune. TWA 800 was just a vehicle
>> for my larger agenda. I think others, like Tom
>> Shoemaker, may be in TWA 800 for TWA 800. It's
>> not that I didn't care about the loss of life,
>> I did/I do. To do no harm is a primary axiom.
>>
>> Why would I want to give govt a black eye? To pro-
>> mote by default libertarian ideology. One way to
>> get people to stop voting for more govt is to
>> encourage distrust and suspicion of the govt. Well,
>> if it's founded, maybe that's a good thing. Too
>> bad people didn't distrust govt more in Germany
>> just prior to Hitler. A healthy dose of anti-govt
>> paranoia then might have saved millions. I don't
>> think the idea that "anti-govt paranoia" is some
>> kind of disease that must be eradicated is such
>> a healthy concept.
>>
>> But what if I was wrong about the Navy having done
>> it? Then ipso facto I've done a bad thing. In short,
>> the business of finger pointing is a risky business,
>> since your always maybe doing the wrong thing. Unless
>> you saw the event by 100%, which if a missile flew out
>> of the water would mean seeing also underwater, you never
>> can know for 100% sure what happened. I don't know what
>> happened to TWA 800 and probably never will, so I'm
>> not going to guess. I'll leave the finger pointing
>> to those who are more foolhardy than I.
>>
>> _____________________________________________
>> Ian Goddard <igod...@netkonnect.net>

And while I'm at it, let me make a few comments about your
meticulously collected "facts". (Sorry this runs so long, but I
thought it proper to quote the exact wording so you can judge
yourselves).

> I. MILITARY CULPABILITY

> FACT 1: July 17th breaking news reports, rarely to
> resurface, stated that naval maneuvers were being
> conducted off-shore near the explosion of TWA flight
> 800, which killed 230 people around 8:31 PM, EDT.

Not all together true. The "fact" is that the warning area was open
(or was about to open). The actual exercise could have been planned
much later, or even far from the flight path from JFK.

To be a useful fact, you need to find out how often the area is open,
what it is used for, what was planned that night, etc. As you state
the "fact", it's nearly useless.

> FACT 2: Confirming early reports, TWA 800 exploded
> near the naval warning zones W-105 and W-107, both
> of which were activated for military maneuvers on
> the night of the explosion. The professional avia-
> tion publication Aerospace Daily (08/28/96) reports:

> [ Area W-105 ] is designed to keep
> aircraft departing New York safely
> north of any military activity...

> FAA sources and the Navy acknowledged
> yesterday...that the area known as
> Whiskey 105, or W-105, was activated
> at the time of the TWA accident...

> The New American (10/14/96) reports that the FAA's
> "Warning and Restricted Areas Information Log" shows
> that nearby W-107 was also activated at the same time.

Same fact as #1 with contridiction of "rarely to resurface".

> FACT 3: The Airman's Information Manual (3:33) states
> that the hazards of Warning Areas are to be considered
> the same as those of Restricted Areas. The Manual (3:32)
> defines the hazards of Restricted Areas as follows:

> [Restricted Areas] denote the existence
> of unusual, often invisible, hazards
> to aircraft, such as artillery firing,
> aerial gunnery, or guided missiles.

Seems logical to list the most dangerous possibilities in the manual.
I assume you don't mean to imply that missile exercises were
definitely planned that day based on this?

> FACT 4: At a Department of Defense press conference
> on July 23, 1996, DoD spokesman Kenneth Bacon said:

> I'm not aware [that] there were any
> military exercises in the area. I've
> been told by the Joint [Chiefs of]
> Staff that there were not.

> However, after eight months of such denials, on March
> 22, 1997, Newsday reported that the Navy finally ad-
> mitted that there were (a) military exercises and (b)
> three Navy submarines in the area at the time of the
> TWA 800 accident.

What denials? You said in an earlier "fact" that the open warning
areas were reported in August of 1996!!

> While U.S. submarines are not known
> deploy antiaircraft missiles, the Discovery Channel's
> program "Sharks of Steel" (06/09/97) stated that:

> The submarine has always been shrouded
> in secrecy... its capabilities undis-
> closed, unseen, unheard, undiscussed.

> Considering (a) that many witness accounts suggest
> that a submarine could have been the source of the
> "skyrocket" seen to hit TWA 800, (b) that there were
> three submarines offshore at the time, and (c) that
> the capabilities of submarines are top secret, if
> a sub-launched SAM did hit TWA 800, the Navy could
> not admit it due to "national security" issues
> pertaining to top-secret Navy capabilities.

Please. If you have to make up facts, we could all be experts on this
or any other topic. You have to do better than "since I can't prove
sub-SAMs don't exist, I can pretend they do".

By the way, this pretty much contradicts your SM-2 Block IV theory
later on.

> FACT 5: Not only were military zones next to TWA 800
> activated, but TWA 800 changed its course to avoid the
> activated military zones only moments before a missile
> was seen streaking toward and hitting TWA 800. As the
> NBC program Unsolved Mysteries (04/04/97) put it:

> Military exercises were being con-
> ducted off the Long Island coast on
> the night of the crash. In fact, TWA
> 800 diverted from its original flight
> path to avoid a restricted area.

> This clearly indicates that there was awareness of
> some threat to the safety of TWA 800 imposed by its
> proximity to the activated military zones. With these
> preconditions, is it a big surprise that a military
> missile flies out of the area and hits TWA 800?

Here you are taking sloppy language from an entertainment program, and
using it as a "fact"? Surely you can find an official source that
claims the aircraft "Changed it's course".

It looks to me like "Unsolved Mysteries" was trying to say the
outbound flight paths change, or can be changed, when the warning
areas are open. NOT that they got an in flight, frantic call to
Change course!!

By the way, the last sentence looks more like commentary than "Fact".

> FACT 6: Radar detected an object merging into TWA
> flight 800 before the explosion. As the Associated
> Press (07/19/96) reported:

> Radar detected a blip merging with
> the jet shortly before the explo-
> sion, something that could indi-
> cate a missile hit.

> However, Pentagon officials, asking the AP not to re-
> veal their names, condemned the blip as "spurious."
> Radar and satellite-image evidence remains concealed.

Sounds like a wash. One claim that the radar showed something, one
that it didn't.
Also, I'd like the source of the AP report. Crediting it to AP sounds
good in your little story, but the AP obviously got it from somewhere
else, and that source may be Ian Goddard for all we know. It's either
sloppy reporting by AP, or by Ian Goddard.

> 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.

Let's look at your opening statement here: "Satellite images also
proved that a sophisticated guided missile tracked and hit TWA 800."
Proved? It looks like a third or fourth hand report to me!

Brookhaven - Law enforcement official - New York Post - Times of
London

I'd rather hear it from the horses mouth, if you don't mind. (You
could apply this critique to most of your facts, but this is probably
the worst example).

> About the spy satellite over the area, the Boston
> Globe (07/24/96) reported: "the satellite was pro-
> bably the CIA's 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 plane's underbelly."

> It's hard to imagine what more proof of a missile
> hit, and by default of a cover-up, would be needed.
> Unfortunately the FBI keeps all the radar and sat-
> ellite images hidden. They also rounded up all
> the negatives of key photographs taken that night.

"Circling to the front of the plane and then......"
"hard to imagine what more proof of a missile......"

Sorry son, but that sounds less like a missile than any other
description I've ever read in regard to this theory!!

> FACT 8: A few miles to the north, and within a few
> minutes, of the TWA 800 crash, Linda Kabot took a
> photograph of what appears to be a Tomahawk cruise
> missile flying low over Southampton only a few yards
> from the ocean. It is possible that such as cruise
> missile may have been the intended drone, or test
> target, for the missile that many saw hit TWA 800.
> In fact, The Independent (07/24/96) of East Hampton
> reported that witnesses saw a "smaller plane" fly-
> ing near TWA 800 around the time of the crash.

> The image to the left is the object Ms. Kabot photo-
> graphed. The object to the right is an exact scaled
> 3D model of a Tomahawk cruise missile I made, placed
> at an identical point of view. It's quite obvious.

Stop using obvious for us, won't you? You claim we should form our
own opinion, yet you feel the need to interject all the time? It was
"obvious" to many knowledgeable people (you call them "spooks") when
this first surfaced that it was very unlikely to be a Tomahawk. Of
course you don't report that here.

But the real story is that you want us to believe there were at least
TWO wayward missiles that day? During a missile test off the coast of
New York City?
Where is the other launch platform? You can't find the surface to air
shooter, and now you want to add more complexity? Based on a grainy
blotch on a photograph? Obvious indeed.

> Missile defense against incoming ballistic and cruise
> missiles is the latest "arms race." If there were mis-
> sile test firings in the area reserved for military op-
> erations off the NY coast, it would likely be part of
> the anticruise-missile missile tests. If so, and if
> the intended cruise drone was missed but TWA 800 hit,
> then a stray cruise missile should be observed flying
> out of that zone. Such a cruise missile was observed.

> Not only is there photographic evidence but there are
> eyewitness reports of what fits a Cruise-Missile pro-
> file to a tee: The Boston Globe (07/24/96), which
> states that in addition to seeing "a brilliant flare-
> like glow that streaked toward the plane," witnesses
> also gave "reports of a low-flying aircraft without
> lights cruising off shore." That fits a CM profile.

> For further analysis of the Kabot photo.
> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm

> FACT 9: Only hours after the crash, investigative
> sources stated that "The leading theory is that the
> airliner was destroyed by a...anti-aircraft missile"
> (Reuters, 07/18/96). Yet White House spokesman Mike
> McCurry attacked those in-the-know, saying, "There's
> no American official with half a brain that ought
> to be speculating on anything of that nature."

Since the FBI prefers to work without outside interference, this
statement could easily be interpreted as trying to close leaks about
one of the possible events. You might not like that, but that's life.
The implication that the White House was trying to publicly steer the
coverup is pretty silly, don't you think?

> FACT 10: Some residents were not surprised by the
> massive explosion of TWA 800 because military oper-
> ations in the area are not unusual. As the East
> Hampton, New York paper The Independent (07/24/96)
> learned from a South Beach resident, John Bauman,
> "people continued fishing" after the blast think-
> ing it was probably "the Westhampton Air Force
> Base doing some kind of testing offshore."

If they are "not unusual", I'm assuming you can list some events
witnessed in that area? One resident with an assumption makes for a
rather thin "fact".

> FACT 11: The Jerusalem Post (07/21/96) says French
> Defense Ministry agents believe that flight 800 was
> shot-down by a Navy missile. While many victims were
> from France, French investigators have been, in vio-
> lation of routine international protocol, prohibited
> from assisting the FBI-NAVY-NTSB secret investigation.

I'd like a reference for the "international protocol" if you don't
mind. American machismo isn't pretty, but it isn't proof of a coverup
either.

All second hand, all speculation, all anonymous. You think it was a
missile too, but that doesn't make it a fact.

> FACT 13: Former United Airlines pilot and crash invest-
> igator Richard Russell learned via inside connections
> that TWA 800 was hit by a Navy missile in the course
> of test firings. His report was widely condemned and
> anyone who even considers it, such as former reporter
> Pierre Salinger, has been viciously smeared and labl-
> ed as mentally imbalanced, even as key information
> in his report is consistent with known facts and with
> events reported by dozens of witnesses. The only case
> against the report is: the Navy denies the charges.

This "report" has been widely discussed long ago, and some things that
should be considered (but not mentioned by Mr. Goddard):

- Missile testing off the coast of New York is reckless in the
extreme.
- the Russell report claims they were shooting toward a P-3. Would
you fly that plane?
- No ships have been found to be close enough to shoot as far as the
747.
- Goddard thinks it was a sub-SAM....No, a surface launch.....No, a
sub-SAM.......BOTH!! Boy, it's amazing the way they shoot missiles
around New York!

> FACT 14: Exactly as Captain Russell's report stated,
> a P-3 Orion near TWA 800 and a guided-missile ship
> were working together. The Discovery Channel's pro-
> gram on the TWA 800 investigation (11/17/96) said:

> The Navy had a P-3 and a guided
> missile carrier in the area on
> some kind of exercise.

> It's hard to imagine how else a guided-missile ship
> would be relating to a far point in the sky--the P-3
> near TWA 800--apart from some exercise involving the
> firing of missiles at or near that point, which is
> exactly what Captain Russell reported (08/22/96).

Quite a stretch: we go from:
"in the area on some kind of exercise", to :

"were working together", to

"It's hard to imagine how.......apart from some exercise involving the
firing of missiles......".

You're playing with words......and not very well, I might add.

> FACT 15: WCBS-TV of New York reported (09/05/96) that
> information leaked from the top-secret crash invest-
> igation indicates that TWA 800 was shot-down by a
> Navy missile. Top officials condemned the idea as
> totally absurd and a sign of mental imbalance.

Second hand reports.......and commentary. The only fact here is that
WCBS reported the same thing as somebody else......(And I'd like to
see the actual wording instead of a Goddard re-write if you don't
mind).

> FACT 16: When asked if the area TWA 800 exploded is
> used as a missile testing area, at a news conference
> (11/08/96), Navy Admiral Edward Kristensen said the
> area is "not typicality used for missile training."
> While also saying he is not aware of tests ever oc-
> curing in the area, he did not deny that they do.

Man!! Nobody can answer a question to your satisfaction, can they!?!

Ask youself this: If he was trying to misinform, wouldn't it be
easier to just say "No....We never shoot missiles there". Instead, he
gives a measured answer, probably because he didn't know, and it
wasn't a good enough denial for you.
More word-play, and definitely not a "fact".

> FACT 17: While the region was activated for maneuvers,
> a Navy spokesmen claimed Navy ships were too far away
> to have hit TWA 800 with a missile, but then in his
> next breath he makes a claim proven to be false re-
> garding naval weapons capabilities in the area. The
> Associated Press (11/08/96) reported this:

> Lt. Cmdr. Rob Newell, a Navy spokes-
> man...said...an Aegis-type missile
> cruiser, was 185 miles to the south...
> [and that] the only aircraft in the
> area was a P-3 Orion anti-submarma-
> rine plane, which he said does not
> carry missiles. But the military
> reference, Janes All The World’s
> Aircraft, states the P-3 is cap-
> able of carrying missiles.

> While the P-3 is not a likely suspect, it would
> seem that the Navy is being less than forthright
> when a full accounting of missile capabilities
> in the area is of the utmost necessity.

If a plane goes down, and a missile is thought to be a possible cause,
would you concern yourself with Harpoons?
Again, you are trying to assume that every spokesman must have the
verbal skills of a seasoned lawyer, or you are going to use it against
him.
More word-play, and still not a telling "fact".

> FACT 18: The Navy claims it's guided missile cruiser,
> at 185 miles south, was too far for a missile strike.
> That is false: the Standard Missile 2 Block IV, with
> a range of over 200 miles is capable of covering this
> distance, and the USS Normandy deployed the SM-2(IV).

Oh, do tell where you got the information on what USS Normandy was
deployed with!! If you find any evidence of any US ship carrying a
SM-2 Blk IV that week, I'll give you a prize!

And what does this say about your reports of a missile rising from the
sea pointing to a sub-SAM?

> II. WITNESS REPORTS

> FACT 19:
> FACT 20:
> FACT 21:
> FACT 22:
> FACT 23:
> FACT 24:
> FACT 25:
> FACT 26:
> FACT 27:

All valid facts: Witnesses did see something, and nobody denies that.
(Should be one "fact" however).

And this is where all of the "missile theories" come from. Yes, it is
puzzling, and the FBI is/was puzzled too. I would like to know where
the "streak of light" came from too......But I'm not going to go out
of my way to blame someone for it just yet.

> It's impossible to fathom why it is that the missile
> theory is said publicly by the FBI to be on an equal
> footing with the bomb and mechanical-failure theories,
> both of which, unlike the missile theory, are said to
> have "no supporting evidence." How is the witness of
> over 150 people and radar equal to no evidence ??!!

Tarver Engineering

unread,

Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97

On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 20:01:55 -0600, st...@could.com wrote:

>In article <65gjmo$etv$1...@nntp.pe.net>,

> Odd...@the.net wrote:
>>
>> Ian Goddard <igod...@erols.com> (Ian Goddard) wrote:
>

>Odd: You somehow get 27 "facts", while I can boil them down to this:

>>
>> 1) Witnesses saw something that could have been a missile (other
>> interpretations are possible).
>> 2) The Navy may have been in the area at the time of the crash, but no
>> credible evidence of a launch platform has been found close enough.
>> 3) The FBI and NTSB have found no evidence of missile damage or parts
>> in the aircraft.
>> 4) That's all folks.
>

>Let's run that by again:
>
> "You (IAN) somehow get 27 "facts", while I can boil them down to
>this:" Permit me to disagree with both of you. No offense. 1)

>Witnesses saw something that could have been a missile (other

>interpretations are possible). The only other interpretations put
>forward are the CIA's epic and Kallstrom's cigar, both silly. I would
>add "only" after "could" and delete the statement in parens. 2) The

>Navy may have been in the area at the time of the crash, but no credible
>evidence of a launch platform has been found close enough. 3) The FBI
>and NTSB have found no evidence of missile damage or parts in the

>aircraft Replace "found" in 2 and 3 with "reported" and then delete
>both items. That should do it. Now, if we can resolve item 1, the rest
>should fall in place with a valid independent investigation. .4) That's
>all folks. Was that REALLY on the end of the CIA cartoon? The CIA will
>have to answer to Porky Pig, if true.

The four pigs minus one.

> That's copywrit! We have left:
>1) Witnesses saw something that could only have been a missile, and 2)
>The rest should fall in place with a valid independent investigation.
>Do you both agree? Didn't think so! Stan

>PS Anyone care to boil it down further?

Do you really want rivero armed with the truth?

John

stan clark

unread,

Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97

st...@could.com wrote in message <8805955...@dejanews.com>...

>In article <65gjmo$etv$1...@nntp.pe.net>,
> Odd...@the.net wrote:
>>

>> Ian Goddard <igod...@erols.com> (Ian Goddard) wrote:
>

>Odd: You somehow get 27 "facts", while I can boil them down to this:

>Let's run that by again:
>

> "You (IAN) somehow get 27 "facts", while I can boil them down to
>this:"

Permit me to disagree with both of you. No offense.

1) Witnesses saw something that could have been a missile (other
>interpretations are possible).

The only other interpretations put forward are the CIA's epic and

Kallstrom's cigar, both silly. I would add "only" after "could" and delete
the statement in parens.

2) The Navy may have been in the area at the time of the crash, but no

credible
>evidence of a launch platform has been found close enough.
3) The FBI and NTSB have found no evidence of missile damage or parts in
the

>aircraft

Replace "found" in 2 and 3 with "reported" and then delete
>both items.

That should do it. Now, if we can resolve item 1, the rest
>should fall in place with a valid independent investigation.

.4) That's all folks.

Was that REALLY on the end of the CIA cartoon? The CIA will

>have to answer to Porky Pig, if true. That's copywrit! We have left:

>1) Witnesses saw something that could ONLY have been a missile, and 2)

>The rest should fall in place with a valid independent investigation.

>Do you both agree? Didn't think so! Stan
>
>PS Anyone care to boil it down further?

>
>
>
>
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Bobby Barton

unread,

Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97

> >> 2) The Navy may have been in the area at the time of the crash, but no
> >> credible evidence of a launch platform has been found close enough.

First, let me agree with everyone who says that the final report on TWA 800
is bullshit. I do have a nagging question, though.

Why does it have to be a Navy missile? It sounds good for a conspiracy
theory. But weapons test ranges are tightly controlled, especially with
regards to airspace conflictions. I know this, as I have been flying for 8
years on wet fire ranges around the country.
Every time someone even came close to the range, it was shut down.

So what precludes the possibility of this being a terrorist act? Stinger
manpads have gone missing from Afghanistan, and God knows what all the
Russians have been selling of late. Shoulder-fired missiles are in the
hands of terrorists, without a doubt. How hard would it be for a group to
rent a boat, pop the plane, and disappear? I admit that 12000ft is a
rather high shot, but for a non-evasive target in a climb, no
counter-measures, and four nice hot engines to look at? It is possible.

Why couldn't it be a domestic terrorist group? Wouldn't that be just as
embarrassing for the US? Especially so soon after Oklahoma City? Or
another group of terrorists? I just can not believe that the US Navy is
guilty in any fashion in this. No single member of the military, even a
squid, would allow something like this to happen.

Can someone post some facts as to why they believe the Navy is guilty in
this? You'll have to make them extremely convincing. Just the fact that a
ship is in the area won't cut it. Also, is there anyone out there who
agrees with me?

--
Bobby Barton
indy@ don't spam me cfi.net

Gord Beaman

unread,

Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97

"Bobby Barton" <in...@cfi.net> wrote:
--cut--

>
>Can someone post some facts as to why they believe the Navy is guilty in
>this? You'll have to make them extremely convincing. Just the fact that a
>ship is in the area won't cut it. Also, is there anyone out there who
>agrees with me?
>
>--
>Bobby Barton
>indy@ don't spam me cfi.net

Bobby you're about 6 - 8 months late on this (maybe more)...this was hashed
and rehashed then the hash was trashed and the thrash was twisted and
reheated and after all the thrashing nobody was one whit the wiser, but if
you wanna get it all upchucked again have at my son...
--
Gord Beaman
PEI, Canada,
VE1EO.

Mark Rogers

unread,

Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97

Bobby Barton <in...@cfi.net> wrote in article
<01bcfb94$3c7eb640$356524d1@->...

>
> First, let me agree with everyone who says that the final report on TWA
800
> is bullshit. I do have a nagging question, though.
>

Final report? The investigation is ongoing; no final report has been
issued.

>
> So what precludes the possibility of this being a terrorist act? Stinger
> manpads have gone missing from Afghanistan, and God knows what all the
> Russians have been selling of late. Shoulder-fired missiles are in the
> hands of terrorists, without a doubt. How hard would it be for a group
to
> rent a boat, pop the plane, and disappear? I admit that 12000ft is a
> rather high shot, but for a non-evasive target in a climb, no
> counter-measures, and four nice hot engines to look at? It is possible.

All four engines were recovered and showed no evidence of missile damage.
It is also unlikely that a shoulder-fired missile hitting an engine would
cause an immediate explosion of sufficient intensity to cause immediate
interruption of the CVR and FDR.

There are two large problems with it being terrorism (domestic or
international). First, no one has claimed responsibility. Second, without
the Navy firing the missile, there is even less of a motive for the Navy,
NTSB, CIA, FBI, Boeing, ALPA, Pratt and Whitney (?), TWA and others to
support a coverup.

>
> Why couldn't it be a domestic terrorist group? Wouldn't that be just as
> embarrassing for the US? Especially so soon after Oklahoma City? Or
> another group of terrorists? I just can not believe that the US Navy is
> guilty in any fashion in this. No single member of the military, even a
> squid, would allow something like this to happen.
>

> Can someone post some facts as to why they believe the Navy is guilty in
> this? You'll have to make them extremely convincing. Just the fact that
a
> ship is in the area won't cut it. Also, is there anyone out there who
> agrees with me?

I agree- the Navy did not do this.

>
> --
> Bobby Barton
> indy@ don't spam me cfi.net

--Mark Rogers

Tarver Engineering

unread,

Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97

On 28 Nov 1997 18:17:23 GMT, "Mark Rogers" <mmro...@tcsn.net> wrote:

>
>
>Bobby Barton <in...@cfi.net> wrote in article
><01bcfb94$3c7eb640$356524d1@->...
>>
>> First, let me agree with everyone who says that the final report on TWA
>800
>> is bullshit. I do have a nagging question, though.
>>
>
>Final report? The investigation is ongoing; no final report has been
>issued.
>
>>
>> So what precludes the possibility of this being a terrorist act? Stinger
>> manpads have gone missing from Afghanistan, and God knows what all the
>> Russians have been selling of late. Shoulder-fired missiles are in the
>> hands of terrorists, without a doubt. How hard would it be for a group
>to
>> rent a boat, pop the plane, and disappear? I admit that 12000ft is a
>> rather high shot, but for a non-evasive target in a climb, no
>> counter-measures, and four nice hot engines to look at? It is possible.
>
>All four engines were recovered and showed no evidence of missile damage.
>It is also unlikely that a shoulder-fired missile hitting an engine would
>cause an immediate explosion of sufficient intensity to cause immediate
>interruption of the CVR and FDR.

It is very likely that the attachment pins would have dropped the
engine. That would only have caused the airplane to return to JFK.

>There are two large problems with it being terrorism (domestic or
>international). First, no one has claimed responsibility. Second, without
>the Navy firing the missile, there is even less of a motive for the Navy,
>NTSB, CIA, FBI, Boeing, ALPA, Pratt and Whitney (?), TWA and others to
>support a coverup.

The only coverup is that the SN of the airplane that crashed does not
match the SN shown in the registration. The airplane that crashed was
only a few weeks out of retrofit. It had just been added to TWA's
fleet.

John

Ian Goddard

unread,

Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97

Ian Goddard <igod...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> FACT 18: The Navy claims it's guided missile cruiser,
>>> at 185 miles south, was too far for a missile strike.
>>> That is false: the Standard Missile 2 Block IV, with
>>> a range of over 200 miles is capable of covering this
>>> distance, and the USS Normandy deployed the SM-2(IV).
>>
>>Oh, do tell where you got the information on what USS Normandy was
>>deployed with!! If you find any evidence of any US ship carrying a
>>SM-2 Blk IV that week, I'll give you a prize!
>
>

> IAN: Jane's Fighting Ships 95-96.
> Go to the library and look it up.

IAN: Actually it's Jane's Fighting
Ships 1996-97, published in 1996,
which states that the USS Normandy
deployed the SM2-(IV) in 1996.

First the Normanday was 180 miles
away from TWA 800 at crash time:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul96/t072396_t0723asd.html

However, after we observed that the
SM2-(IVA) could cover that distance,
the Normandy suddenly became over
200 miles away at crash time:

http://www.newsday.com/jet/cras0322.htm

Oddwell

unread,

Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97

"Bobby Barton" <in...@cfi.net> wrote:

>> >> 2) The Navy may have been in the area at the time of the crash, but no
>> >> credible evidence of a launch platform has been found close enough.

>First, let me agree with everyone who says that the final report on TWA 800

>is bullshit. I do have a nagging question, though.

Don't know about you, but I haven't seen a final report yet. Just a
final FBI finding of no criminal act.....and by extention, no missile.

>Why does it have to be a Navy missile? It sounds good for a conspiracy
>theory. But weapons test ranges are tightly controlled, especially with
>regards to airspace conflictions. I know this, as I have been flying for 8
>years on wet fire ranges around the country.
>Every time someone even came close to the range, it was shut down.

Glad someone came along to bring this up again. I think those of us
who are argueing against a "Navy Missile" tend to get cought up in the
missile proponents game. This is a major point, yet we spend so much
time attempting to answer the conspiracy points, that we forget to
press some very good points on our side!! (Unfortunately, there does
seem to be "sides".)

>So what precludes the possibility of this being a terrorist act? Stinger
>manpads have gone missing from Afghanistan, and God knows what all the
>Russians have been selling of late. Shoulder-fired missiles are in the
>hands of terrorists, without a doubt. How hard would it be for a group to
>rent a boat, pop the plane, and disappear? I admit that 12000ft is a
>rather high shot, but for a non-evasive target in a climb, no
>counter-measures, and four nice hot engines to look at? It is possible.

>Why couldn't it be a domestic terrorist group? Wouldn't that be just as

>embarrassing for the US? Especially so soon after Oklahoma City? Or
>another group of terrorists? I just can not believe that the US Navy is
>guilty in any fashion in this. No single member of the military, even a
>squid, would allow something like this to happen.

And let's not forget the NTSB and FBI aren't exactly slouches either.
Remember that no physical evidence of a missile has been presented by
anyone who has had access to the 747 itself. That's the best evidence
that there was no missile at all, terrorist or otherwise.

And as Mr. Beaman has pointed out, the terrorist theory has been put
forward, and has been found lacking as well. Thankfully, those
proponents have been thoughtful enough to go think about it some more.

>Can someone post some facts as to why they believe the Navy is guilty in
>this? You'll have to make them extremely convincing. Just the fact that a
>ship is in the area won't cut it. Also, is there anyone out there who
>agrees with me?

You won't get any of the evidence you request. The whole Friendly
Fire theory is built on a healthy dose of circumstantial evidence
(mostly in the form of newspaper clippings), a heavy dose of
anti-government sentiment, and a dash of anti-mass-media bitching.

And as far as agreeing with you: Depends on which of the points you
brought up.

No, there has been no final report.
No, it probably isn't a terrorist missile.
No, it probably wasn't a missile at all.
Yes, the Navy is being unfairly blamed.
No, nobody will agree with anyone on all points of any post ever
written on this topic. ;)

>--
>Bobby Barton
>indy@ don't spam me cfi.net

And yes, I won't spam you. ;)

Oddwell

unread,

Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97

Ian Goddard <igod...@erols.com> (Ian Goddard) wrote:

>Ian Goddard <igod...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> FACT 18: The Navy claims it's guided missile cruiser,
>>>> at 185 miles south, was too far for a missile strike.
>>>> That is false: the Standard Missile 2 Block IV, with
>>>> a range of over 200 miles is capable of covering this
>>>> distance, and the USS Normandy deployed the SM-2(IV).
>>>
>>>Oh, do tell where you got the information on what USS Normandy was
>>>deployed with!! If you find any evidence of any US ship carrying a
>>>SM-2 Blk IV that week, I'll give you a prize!
>>
>>

>> IAN: Jane's Fighting Ships 95-96.
>> Go to the library and look it up.

> IAN: Actually it's Jane's Fighting
> Ships 1996-97, published in 1996,

> which states that the USS Normandy
> deployed the SM2-(IV) in 1996.

Sorry, but either you are "quoting" them wrong, or Jane's is wrong.

I don't have Jane's nearby, but I have a feeling it says something
along the lines of "SM-2 Blk IV can be (or will be) deployed on DDG 51
class destroyers."

Independent knowledge (mine) tells me that Normandy did not have Blk
IV missiles, and in fact, no east coast ship has EVER had a Blk IV on
board. No, I can't prove it to you.

> First the Normanday was 180 miles
> away from TWA 800 at crash time:

>http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul96/t072396_t0723asd.html

> However, after we observed that the
> SM2-(IVA) could cover that distance,
> the Normandy suddenly became over
> 200 miles away at crash time:

>http://www.newsday.com/jet/cras0322.htm

I know you won't believe this, but you can't prove anything with press
reports. They can be wrong, and quoting them is about as useless as
quoting me.

I think most folks have standardized on 185 miles, so as coverup
attempts go, it pretty much failed. (BTW, a missile flying 185 miles
wouldn't have much of a "streak of light" left anymore, so it's a moot
point).

Ian Goddard

unread,

Dec 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/1/97

On Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:19:12 GMT, odd...@the.net (Oddwell) wrote:

>>Ian Goddard <igod...@erols.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> FACT 18: The Navy claims it's guided missile cruiser,
>>>>> at 185 miles south, was too far for a missile strike.
>>>>> That is false: the Standard Missile 2 Block IV, with
>>>>> a range of over 200 miles is capable of covering this
>>>>> distance, and the USS Normandy deployed the SM-2(IV).
>>>>
>>>>Oh, do tell where you got the information on what USS Normandy was
>>>>deployed with!! If you find any evidence of any US ship carrying a
>>>>SM-2 Blk IV that week, I'll give you a prize!
>>>
>>>

>>> IAN: Jane's Fighting Ships 95-96.
>>> Go to the library and look it up.
>

>Sorry, but either you are "quoting" them wrong, or Jane's is wrong.
>
>I don't have Jane's nearby, but I have a feeling it says something
>along the lines of "SM-2 Blk IV can be (or will be) deployed on DDG 51
>class destroyers."
>
>Independent knowledge (mine) tells me that Normandy did not have Blk
>IV missiles, and in fact, no east coast ship has EVER had a Blk IV on
>board. No, I can't prove it to you.

IAN: I just got back from the library. I hate
to admit I made an error, but alas, I did. Jane's
indicates that in fact the SM-2(IV) was only on
the USS Lake Erie (CG-70) in 1996, not on the
USS Normandy (CG-60).

I realize I'll probably be ridiculed to the ends
of the earth and framed as a fraud for my having
found that error (thanks to Oddwells' constructive
input), but I find, report, and correct it anyway.
As the record will indicate, I have always published
errata notices following the discovery of any errors
in my reports, as embarrassing as that can be. The
same level of social responsibility is not to be
found in the major media, who try to frame me
as an irresponsible rumor and hoax monger.

Eric Pawtowski

unread,

Dec 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/2/97

>>Russians have been selling of late. Shoulder-fired missiles are in the
>>hands of terrorists, without a doubt. How hard would it be for a group to
>>rent a boat, pop the plane, and disappear? I admit that 12000ft is a
>>rather high shot, but for a non-evasive target in a climb, no
>>counter-measures, and four nice hot engines to look at? It is possible.

I think a 747 is kind of large for a single shoulder-fired missile to
bring down, certinaly too big to bring down so fast the pilot wouldn't
have a chance to radio what was happening. Shoulder-fired missiles go
for the engines. On an airliner like a 747, with the engines hanging out
on pods below the wings, you can have one blow up and the thing still
flies. Stingers are meant to take out tactical aircraft like military
fighters, with their engines buried in the fuselage. If it blows, lots
of damage to the airframe.

Eric

--
epaw...@vt.edu----------------------------------------------------

Ian Goddard

unread,

Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97

On Mon, 01 Dec 1997 18:46:25 -0500, Ron Katona <ro...@cris.com> wrote:

>Ian Goddard (Ian Goddard) wrote:
>> IAN: I just got back from the library. I hate
>> to admit I made an error, but alas, I did. Jane's
>> indicates that in fact the SM-2(IV) was only on
>> the USS Lake Erie (CG-70) in 1996, not on the
>> USS Normandy (CG-60).
>>
>> I realize I'll probably be ridiculed to the ends
>> of the earth and framed as a fraud for my having
>> found that error (thanks to Oddwells' constructive
>> input), but I find, report, and correct it anyway.

><snip>
>
>I don't think you'll find any reasonable opponent of yours ridiculing
>you for this. I certainly commend it. However, (you knew that was
>coming) I certainly don't commend the crocodile tears about the possible
>ridicule.

IAN: Maybe you missed it, but last time I said
I made a mistake (promoting the Navy-missile
theory), I was framed as a fraud. Saying that
it was a mistake was not saying it was a lie
or that it was definitely false. Obviously I
cannot know if it did or did not happen, just
gather evidence pointing one way or another.
I felt it was a mistake to be so one-sided,
but that is also not wrong, just not wise.

I felt that in the big picture, it's OK to
be one-sided so long as others are making the
other side. I tend to make the case that others
reject, just to try to balance things out.

>I seem to remember that a very long time ago you were told
>that these weapons were not on the Normandy, but only now admit it.
>What took so long?

IAN: One thing I've learned is that what military
folks countering the theory say about military
capabilities rarely pans out. In the case above,
I was looking up info on the ESSM months ago and
read in Jane's that the SM-2(IV) was being used on
CG-70, I erred in thinking that was the Normandy,
CG-60, and made a note in my note-pad to that
effect, but yesterday I went to the library to
get the exact quote and noticed the error and
reported it right away.

A good example of why it is better to quote
the source verbatim than make a quick note.

> I find your admission reasonable, but not heroic, no need
>to make yourself out as a martyr for being wrong in the first place.
>Now, was that a nice enough way of putting it?

IAN: Well, you did your best to sour my
notification of errata. Anyway, the SM-2(IV)
thing is a periphery detail. The missile seen
was fired closer to shore than TWA 800, there
may hay been another missile, but it was also
probably fired much closer than the Normandy.

Paul Sengupta

unread,

Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97

> > So what precludes the possibility of this being a terrorist act?

> There are two large problems with it being terrorism (domestic or

> international). First, no one has claimed responsibility.

Well, when it actually happened, there was a news report here in the
UK that a large Islamic terrorist group HAD claimed responsibility. This
was in the first day or two after the crash. I never heard anything
about it after that. Maybe they just wanted it to appear as if it
was so.

> Second, without
> the Navy firing the missile, there is even less of a motive for the Navy,
> NTSB, CIA, FBI, Boeing, ALPA, Pratt and Whitney (?), TWA and others to
> support a coverup.

Perhaps there isn't a cover up. Parhaps a missile hit the fuselage,
didn't explode, went off somewhere to never be recovered. Perhaps
it didn't leave any evidence. Perhaps it did leave some residue which
could easily have been something else.

Just speculation.

--
Paul

Mark Rogers

unread,

Dec 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/5/97

Paul Sengupta <paul.s...@nospam.guildford.ericsson.se> wrote in article
<3485A4D9...@nospam.guildford.ericsson.se>...

> > Second, without
> > the Navy firing the missile, there is even less of a motive for the
Navy,
> > NTSB, CIA, FBI, Boeing, ALPA, Pratt and Whitney (?), TWA and others to
> > support a coverup.
>
> Perhaps there isn't a cover up. Parhaps a missile hit the fuselage,
> didn't explode, went off somewhere to never be recovered. Perhaps
> it didn't leave any evidence. Perhaps it did leave some residue which
> could easily have been something else.
>
> Just speculation.
>
> --
> Paul

If the missile passed through the fuselage and didn't explode, you would
have evidence of this on the CVR and FDR, not normal flight suddenly
interrupted by large explosive event, which is what occurred.

--Mark Rogers

0 new messages