The TWA 800 Whistleblower Is Legit

FBI Treatment for the Clintons???? Nope, they are special.

I have a great deal of experience with these exact weapons systems. This statement has me concerned: "On the evening of July 17, 1996, as Teele relates, the Carr was trying out new AN/SPY-1 Alpha radar as well as new AN/SPS 49 radar. For this simulated air attack, the target was to be a drone pulled by a military aircraft using a thousand-or-so foot chain. Teele was among the personnel monitoring this activity from within the ship’s combat information center (CIC)." The Carr is an older ship and DID NOT have or ever get an AN/SPY-1 radar. Only Ticonderoga class Cruisers and Arleigh Burke class Destroyers had that radar at that time. The AN/SPS 49 is the Carr's primary search radar for aircraft. If that huge detail is wrong, what else is??

I worked for Boeing during this time and designed some of the Nitrogen Generation Systems for Boeing Commercial airliners. The NGS was designed to flood the fuel tanks with Nitrogen to keep them from having a flammable atmosphere to prevent explosions. It was in response to the TWA 800 incident and another incident involving a 707 in hot weather and near empty tanks that exploded. The NGS was developed as a screen for a test that went wrong. In reality we saw the data and photos of the two planes. We determined the TWA800 flight was NOT a result of a flammable fuel environment ignited by "bad" wiring. In reality it was a sub launched anti-aircraft test that went bad. Simple as that. One of the greatest threats to a submarine is detection by sub hunter aircraft. The program developed a sub launched anti-aircraft missile to take out sub hunter threats. The Government is notorious for covering up screw ups in the name of National Security.

P.S. to my previous post. The program is still on going but the name of the program has been changed.

The article states there were 4 surface ships, 3 submarines and a P-3 Orion in the sky, all in the area of TWA 800. That's a Lot of military people, I mean a LOT! And after all these years not ONE of them comes forward with the 'truth?' Pretty hard to swallow, at least for me.

Re #3. It is impossible to get a flammable mixture in a closed fuel tank with any liquid fuel present, the mixture will be too rich to ignite, always, unless the tank is opened and much extra air is added somehow, seems impossible. What uniformed person would even waste one minute of time on trying to come up with a tech solution to prevent something that isn't actually possible? Some engineers are unaware of the "too lean" and "too rich" ranges for hydrocarbon fuel-air mixtures, but it is extemely well documented in the literature. This is why we can have all cars with electric fuel pumps and electric fuel level sensors inside the tank and no explosions. Too rich to burn is what keeps us all safe.

I just go with the story our trusted Washington government says it is. The very merchants of truth along with the DOJ at the time. Janet Reno oversaw Waco so this is about the same. Our government wouldn't cover anything up. Reading comments here there are persons who know more than I do but makes you ask questions about the possible holes in the story I'm skeptical about it.

#2.. a point was made that it was NEW technology. Could the Carr have been used as a testing platform?

#6...Bingo! Only under specific circumstances can a fuel/air mix ratio ignite. TWA 800's center fuel tank did not (even though partially empty) have a stoichiometric air/fuel ratio capable of supporting combustion. Jet A (Kerosene) fuel is different than gasoline and is even harder to ignite. We knew (at Boeing) the whole premise of a fuel tank explosion was all BS but the FAA and the public needed an answer that would make them feel safe to fly again. We grudgingly had to develop a system to satisfy the narrative and thus NGS was developed and made mandatory on all commercial airliners. Big money for Boeing and a good cover story for the Feds.

Ten or twenty years ago I and most people would have laughed at this as a tin foil hat conspiracy. Only Pierre Salinger thought the gov did it and was covering it up. Now I'm just not sure. There are lots of people who believe FDR set up Pearl Harbor, Oswald didn't kill JFK, Sirhan didn't kill RFK, etc. The problem with conspiracies is they tend to fall apart when somebody talks. Is this whistle blower legit? I just don't know.

Nelson DeMille has two, fiction, books on this event. He proved this plane was indeed attacked. Hope he writes a third clearing up the farce of a story when so many saw the darn rocket 'going up.'

The coverup had one purpose - to make sure that Clinton got reelected 4 months later.

I don't believe anything the government tells me but I do believe the posters on Lucianne.com, however, I still believe and can't assuage my conscience that there was someone on that aircraft that bill clinton wanted killed and who best to do the job "right" than the U.S. military bill clinton, if the truth were ever revealed, would be the most dangerous individual to ever hold the highest office in our land and the least trusted of all "Presidents", he is the most self effacing, egotistical, traitorous person, ever, to have ever had the opportunity to lead our country and deserves, only, to be deleted from our county's history ... and ... his wife is no better

This event was conclusively a missle strike to those people who actually examined the evidence at the time and followed Cashill's reporting. The only question that remains is this; Who are the people that had enough power to cover this up and bamboozle the American people all this time? I suspect they are still fully employed.

#2 correctly points out the ignorance of anyone who knows anything about Naval anti-air warfare. While the Carr did have the 2D AN/SPS-49 radar, it never had the 3D AN/SPY-1. And the SPY-1 Alpha was not "new" in 1996 - it had been in service since 1983 and the Navy had long since switched to the SPY-1 Bravo for it's Aegis cruisers and the Delta variant for its destroyers. "...the FBI acknowledged that three submarines -- the USS Normandy, the USS Trepang, and the USS Albuquerque -- were in the “immediate vicinity of the crash site.” Given the stupidity that we've come to expect from the FBI, maybe they really did think there was a submarine called the USS Normandy. Doubtful, but how did Cashill allow this ridiculous inaccuracy to get into his column? And the Navy would never - NEVER - have conducted a live-fire exercise (Cooperative Engagement or anything else) in Long Island Sound. There are designated op areas off the coast of Virginia and in the Caribbean reserved for such activities.

Re #15. It seems very reasonable to never launch a missile in a relatively tight area like LI Sound. But if there was never supposed to be a missile on the rail, only radar tracking, exchange of data via newly developed (guessing) comms paths, and trying to do a wargames type of integrated anti-air battle exercise....again without firing a missile, that doesn't seem out of line. But, I don't know what SOP was. And if this was a "no missile on the rail" exercise, how in hell does a live war shot get on the rail?

I'm familiar with aspects of the forensic investigation of TWA 800 and absolutely never bought the "official" line regarding the fuel tank explosion. There was explosive residue found on many parts of the airframe that had been recovered by a Navy salvage ship, consistent with MANPADS, or shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. Although the FAA was participating in the forensic investigation of TWA 800, the overall investigation was not a typical joint FAA/NTSB collaboration; totally outside of the norm, the Clinton administration put the IC (FBI/CIA) in charge of the investigation, even though the incident was well outside of their swim lanes, expertise-wise. The explosive residue was written off by the official investigation as having come from a K-9 training event conducted on the aircraft some time before the explosion. The cartoon of the explosion, developed by the CIA, was said to portray the "facts" relative to so many eye witnesses consistently reporting that they saw a Millie rise in the sky resulting in the explosion. The official version is that the gas tank explosion blew the forward part of the aircraft off, resulting in a lighter aircraft rapidly climbing, something that does not jive when used to reconcile the multiple reports of a missile trajectory and impact with the aircraft. The FBI SAC for NYC, James Kallstrom, the lead on the investigation, was one of the rare FBI guys who was well respected by the civilian law enforcement community; however, he seemed to have a higher (political) authority pulling his strings on the investigation, which blew all of his hard earned credibility. While I believe flight 800 was struck by a missile, I have doubts that it was from our own Navy. Like #2, I am struck by things in the article , perhaps minor things, I consider inconsistent with the narrative. I've been out of the Navy for quite some time but in general, a Seaman Apprentice is an E-2 rank, second lowest rank in the Navy, not specifically designated with a rating that would indicate formal training at a Navy Class A school or additional formal training at a Class C school, like one would expect from a Fire Controllman or an Electronic Warfare technician, Mineman or Cryptologic technician. For instance, an E-2 Navy Corpsman would be called a Hospitalman Apprentice or HA, indicating the sailor has at least passed the Class A Hospital Corpsman school. The Seaman Apprentice (SA) rate/rating is more generic, similar to a deck hand on a commercial ship, or for an aspiring technician not yet formally trained as a specialist. I would not expect a Seaman Apprentice to be a credible, informed whistleblower relative to a warship's acquisition or fire control radar packages. I always suspected that a Stinger left over from the Afghan/Russian conflict, fired from a private vessel by an Islamic terrorist, took down TWA 800, although I've seen no definitive proof. Recall the Clinton administration was loathe to go after Islamic terrorists at that time., including Bin Laden himself. I'm not saying it couldn't have been a USN training malfunction as the proximate cause but I think it unlikely that more skilled higher ranking Petty Officer technicians aboard a Navy warship responsible for shooting down an American commercial aircraft could have kept quiet this long. Plus, the civilian air traffic corridor off Long Island Sound is heavily traveled by US and foreign aircraft to have been used as a Navy test or live fire range.

My cousin worked for TWA as a flight attendant when this incident happened. In fact she was to have worked that very flight, but had changed with someone. She told me it was a missile that shot the plane out of the air. That is first hand knowledge. They were not allowed to discuss this with anyone. I have always believed that our own military shot down that plane. Not on purpose, but it was still our own military.