Airline Pilot Central Forums - View Single Post

11-15-2015 | 06:37 AM

#182

Adlerdriver

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2007

Posts: 4,064

Likes: 37

From: 767 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by F4E Mx

The CIA video was an attempt to rationalize the dozens of credible eyewitness accounts that saw streaks going up to TWA 800. In the CIA video the explosion in the center fuel tank blows the nose and first class section off, the aircraft is aflame, and then climbs very steeply 4,000 feet before nosing over and crashing. The aircraft climbing steeply while on fire is what the witnesses saw, not missile trails, according to the CIA. The narrator specifically says they were no missiles and it is also in big black letters for anyone who may have a lingering doubt. Everyone from a high-school kid who builds model airplanes to Boeing called it an impossible farce. So why was the CIA involved at all and how could they be so stupid?

Okay – so we’re back on the missile BS. I told myself I wouldn’t waste my time with this thread but I just can’t stand it any longer.

How about all the conspiracy folks use just a modicum of common sense. The simplest answer is usually the most likely candidate. Sure you can spin tales about “G-men” (what is it 1930 again?) withholding information and suppressing eye-witnesses or camera guided missiles without warheads that run on jet fuel. Or, you could simply apply some basic knowledge of surface to air weapons.

Considering a MANPAD would be a heat seeker, if the theory is crazy terrorist in boat, it’s extremely unlikely that a heater that size is going to bring down a 747. The warheads on those things are usually less than 3 kilos. A SAM that size would pop a motor, there'd be some gnashing of teeth and they'd bring it back and land (reference DHL in Bagdad). Those engines are in pods on the wings for a reason. If the hit was worse than that by some stroke of bad luck, there’s no way it would be a catastrophic, there one second, gone the next event. The aircraft would have flown for a while before packing it in and most likely there would have been communication from the crew.

So, since a MANPAD is out, we’re talking fuselage hit/proximity fuse from a large radar guided missile with a good sized warhead (reference Malaysian 17 in Ukraine). Take a look at the MH-17 report and find me some similarities in the TWA report. Any warhead shrapnel in bodies/aircraft parts on the TWA flight like there was in MH17? Is the TWA reconstructed fuselage peppered with holes from hundreds of fragments from a high explosive anti-aircraft warhead like that of MH17? No? Hmmm

Wonder why?

Where could a missile of that size and capability come from out over the ocean off the eastern US coast? The only plausible answer is the US Navy. But if that’s your theory, we run into the whole "keep an entire Navy ship full of US patriots quiet”. Riiiiiiiight.

A high school kid or someone from Boeing called what a farce? Removing the front section of an aircraft going 300 knots plus, instantly shifting the center of gravity farther aft thus making the remainder pitch up and climb? It climbs rapidly until the airspeed dissipates as a result of the climb and break up and then begins to fall to the ocean. Anyone with a basic understanding of how aircraft fly can see that’s exactly what would happen.

You’ve been asked several times to lay out a realistic, believable scenario rooted in fact that supports your position. Simply attempting to create doubt in the reports, videos, etc. produced by the relevant agencies is an easy game to play. If you’re going to claim missile and ignore the basic common sense issues that refute that possibility, tell us who did it and how?