AA and Anti Missile System

[777 fixer]

<_< -----Eric, I'm sure you have your opinion on what happened to Flt.800. And there is nothing I can say, at this late date, to change it, but take it from one of many who personally worked on that aircraft. The center fuel tank did explode, but what caused it, I have no doubt in my mind!

You have no doubts based on what? Based on evidence of a SAM strike on the aircraft? Since there was none we can dismiss that. Then we have to take into consideration the type of SAM that would have been used. The type of MANPAD preferred by terrorist groups are of the heat seeking variety. They home in on the engines, not on the center fuel tank.

When you look at cases of attacks on aircraft with heat seeking MANPADS the hits are either on the engines or in area near the engines, i.e. the wing. There was a C-5 flying out of Baghdad that was hit by a SAM. It was hit in the number four engine. Then there was the A300 flying out of Baghdad that was hit. It was hit in the l/h wing near the engine.

 

[MCI transplant]

You have no doubts based on what? Based on evidence of a SAM strike on the aircraft? Since there was none we can dismiss that. Then we have to take into consideration the type of SAM that would have been used. The type of MANPAD preferred by terrorist groups are of the heat seeking variety. They home in on the engines, not on the center fuel tank.

When you look at cases of attacks on aircraft with heat seeking MANPADS the hits are either on the engines or in area near the engines, i.e. the wing. There was a C-5 flying out of Baghdad that was hit by a SAM. It was hit in the number four engine. Then there was the A300 flying out of Baghdad that was hit. It was hit in the l/h wing near the engine.

<_< ------ Fixer, I base that statement on 35+ years of Aircraft experience, my knowledge of that Aircraft, and the fact that I personally know people who were involved in the investigation. What I'm not sure about is the source of the missiles! Sams, they were not! Ground to air? Yes! From our own Navy, or from another source, is the question in my mind. But one thing I do know. On this issue, in my opinion, our Government did lie to us! ------ Does that shock you? It shouldn't! Where did it come from?----- Bill Clinton! " I did NOT have sexual relations with that women!" :huh:

 

[whino]

I'd LOVE to know, what kind of system the JEWS(EL-AL) have on their A/C !

(And you've got to know, that they have "it", and(justifiably so), for how long) ??
[The JEWS?? Nice language dude. Anyone who has been to Tel Aviv or has seen El Al aircraft up close can see the anti missle systems installed in the tails of all their aircraft. And it was used succesfully in the Mombassa attack a few years ago./quote]

 

[777 fixer]

<_< ------ Fixer, I base that statement on 35+ years of Aircraft experience, my knowledge of that Aircraft, and the fact that I personally know people who were involved in the investigation. What I'm not sure about is the source of the missiles! Sams, they were not! Ground to air? Yes! From our own Navy, or from another source, is the question in my mind. But one thing I do know. On this issue, in my opinion, our Government did lie to us! ------ Does that shock you? It shouldn't! Where did it come from?----- Bill Clinton! " I did NOT have sexual relations with that women!" :huh:

Sams, they were not! Ground to air? Yes! That makes no sense. What is a SAM, a missile that is launched from the ground and into the air. So by your definition it was a SAM. What else could it have been?

The whole theory that it was the Navy is even more outlandish. Having been in the Navy I can tell you trying to keep a ship full of sailors from talking would be quite a chore. The idea that the Navy let one get away is garbage. Let’s say they were conducting live fire exercises. The SM-2 used by the Navy has to be guided to it's target. Turn off the fire control radar and the missile goes dumb. Then there's the fact the warhead is a 140lbs continuous rod high explosive. Those rods are steel spikes that fan out. Given the size of the warhead there would have been no hiding that kind of damage. It would have been all over the aircraft.

There were two parties involved that had an interest in it being a missile. Boeing and TWA, yet no one from either party that was involved in the investigation had come forward. If someone you know has information regarding a missile hit they should stop wasting their time talking to you about it and come forward. If not then it's another unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

 

[MCI transplant]

Sams, they were not! Ground to air? Yes! That makes no sense. What is a SAM, a missile that is launched from the ground and into the air. So by your definition it was a SAM. What else could it have been?

The whole theory that it was the Navy is even more outlandish. Having been in the Navy I can tell you trying to keep a ship full of sailors from talking would be quite a chore. The idea that the Navy let one get away is garbage. Let’s say they were conducting live fire exercises. The SM-2 used by the Navy has to be guided to it's target. Turn off the fire control radar and the missile goes dumb. Then there's the fact the warhead is a 140lbs continuous rod high explosive. Those rods are steel spikes that fan out. Given the size of the warhead there would have been no hiding that kind of damage. It would have been all over the aircraft.

There were two parties involved that had an interest in it being a missile. Boeing and TWA, yet no one from either party that was involved in the investigation had come forward. If someone you know has information regarding a missile hit they should stop wasting their time talking to you about it and come forward. If not then it's another unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

<_< ------- Fixer, first,---- not all ground to air missiles are "SAM'S"! Second,----- you weren't the only one who was in the Navy! And I did say I had my doubts to the source! Ether way, it was, and still is, in my opinion, a government cover up!

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< ------- Fixer, first,---- not all ground to air missiles are "SAM'S"! Second,----- you weren't the only one who was in the Navy! And I did say I had my doubts to the source! Ether way, it was, and still is, in my opinion, a government cover up!

<_< ------Fixer, answer me this! How long have you been in the Airline business? ---- Your an AMT I take it? Well than think about this one! ----- If Flt. 800 went down as the government says, by a "short circuit in the center fuel tank,"----- Why wasn't every 747 grounded the day after they came to that conclusion until corrective action could take place? That includes Air Force "One"???? :huh:

 

[eolesen]

<_< ------Fixer, answer me this! How long have you been in the Airline business? ---- Your an AMT I take it? Well than think about this one! ----- If Flt. 800 went down as the government says, by a "short circuit in the center fuel tank,"----- Why wasn't every 747 grounded the day after they came to that conclusion until corrective action could take place? That includes Air Force "One"???? :huh:

You don't need to be an AMT to figure that one out, MCI. The last time that an entire type was grounded (1979), the FAA paid a fairly steep political price for doing so.

Instead of knee-jerking like they did with the DC10, they issued a more measured response, which is really what should have been done in 1979... There was far more justification to ground the A300/310 fleet with regard to the composite tail lugs, or with the 737 and the yaw dampers.

 

[777 fixer]

<_< ------Fixer, answer me this! How long have you been in the Airline business? ---- Your an AMT I take it? Well than think about this one! ----- If Flt. 800 went down as the government says, by a "short circuit in the center fuel tank,"----- Why wasn't every 747 grounded the day after they came to that conclusion until corrective action could take place? That includes Air Force "One"???? :huh:

The good old "I was doing this job when you were.....blah, blah, blah". You really didn't do say anything to support your view that the aircraft was hit by a missile.

No damage to the engines or wings by heat seeking MANPAD. Not that it really matters since it was the center fuel tank that exploded. That kills the terrorist MANPAD theory. Then there's the USN shot it down by mistake theory. First there is the problem of keeping a ship full of sailors from saying anything. Then there's the fact that if a missile did get away, assuming of course the navy was conducting live fire exercises off Long Island, all they had to do was turn off the fire control radar. Then of course there's the fact that a140lbs high explosive continuous rod warhead would have left some tell tale clues.

 

[MCI transplant]

The good old "I was doing this job when you were.....blah, blah, blah". You really didn't do say anything to support your view that the aircraft was hit by a missile.

No damage to the engines or wings by heat seeking MANPAD. Not that it really matters since it was the center fuel tank that exploded. That kills the terrorist MANPAD theory. Then there's the USN shot it down by mistake theory. First there is the problem of keeping a ship full of sailors from saying anything. Then there's the fact that if a missile did get away, assuming of course the navy was conducting live fire exercises off Long Island, all they had to do was turn off the fire control radar. Then of course there's the fact that a140lbs high explosive continuous rod warhead would have left some tell tale clues.

<_< ----- Fixer, Your post is all over the place. your making assumptions that have no foundation in fact! The facts are that the center fuel tank did explode! That we all agree on! What made it explode is what's at question here! My opinion, and the opinion of many others from mechanics that have worked on these type aircraft, to Viet Nam veteran pilots, that know what missiles look like, believe they saw missiles fired from the ground! These witness were never questioned by the NTSB! They were questioned by the FBI! Why? And what makes you think these missiles, were "heat seeker's"? There are many out there that are not! And where have you come up with this "140lbs high explosive continuous rod warhead" thing? :huh:

 

[777 fixer]

<_< ----- Fixer, Your post is all over the place. your making assumptions that have no foundation in fact! The facts are that the center fuel tank did explode! That we all agree on! What made it explode is what's at question here!

That's real funny coming from someone who says it wasn't a surface to air missile but a ground to air missile. This by definition is the same thing. And yes I'm fully aware that the center fuel tank exploded.

If I'm not mistaken you are the one making assumptions that are not supported by facts. You seem to think it was a missile that hit it. Yet you provide no evidence of that.

 

[777 fixer]

<_< ----- My opinion, and the opinion of many others from mechanics that have worked on these type aircraft, to Viet Nam veteran pilots, that know what missiles look like, believe they saw missiles fired from the ground!

So what you have are opinions, no physical evidence. Any cop will tell you that eye witness testimony is sometimes the worst kind of evidence. Look at how many people have gone to prison only to be released when actual physical evidence, usually DNA, cleared them.

Let me make another point. Since you and the mechanics you speak of have all these years of experience you have probably seen things happen that were not supposed to. Or unforeseen failure modes occurring. Case in point is the DC-10. People said it was almost impossible for one to have a total hydraulic system failure. Yet it happened with United 232. Are you going to try and say that’s not what happened just because it hadn’t before.

 

[777 fixer]

<_< ----- These witness were never questioned by the NTSB! They were questioned by the FBI! Why?

You tried to imply something dark and sinister by asking why hadn’t every other 747 been grounded. As Eric pointed out so well the FAA paid a hefty price for the grounding of the DC-10. If the FAA grounded a type of aircraft because the exact cause was not known right away the airline industry would be crippled. Can you imagine the cost if all 737’s were grounded after US Air 427? Or all MD-80’s after Alaska 261? I can’t help but wonder what you would have said if the FAA had grounded all 747. My guess is you would try and say the government went through extraordinary steps to make people think it was not a missile. Including grounding an entire type even though they “knewâ€￾ it was a SAM.

 

[777 fixer]

<_< ----- These witness were never questioned by the NTSB! They were questioned by the FBI! Why?

Because in the begining it was thought something criminal had occured. In cases like that it falls to the agency that handles things like that, i.e. the FBI.

You tried to imply something dark and sinister by asking why hadn’t every other 747 been grounded. As Eric pointed out so well the FAA paid a hefty price for the grounding of the DC-10. If the FAA grounded a type of aircraft because the exact cause was not known right away the airline industry would be crippled. Can you imagine the cost if all 737’s were grounded after US Air 427? Or all MD-80’s after Alaska 261? I can’t help but wonder what you would have said if the FAA had grounded all 747. My guess is you would try and say the government went through extraordinary steps to make people think it was not a missile. Including grounding an entire type even though they “knewâ€￾ it was a SAM.

 

[777 fixer]

<_< ----- And what makes you think these missiles, were "heat seeker's"? There are many out there that are not! thing?

What makes me think the missiles were heat seekers? At no point have I said that it was a heat seeker that hit it. That's because I don't think TWA 800 was hit by a missile. If you had been paying attention to what I was trying to say you would have known this.

The point I was trying to make was in response to your belief it was hit by a SAM. Since the MANPAD preferred by terrorists are of the heat seeking variety I had hoped that you would see it was highly unlikely that 800 was attacked by one. Reason being since that type of SAM homes in on engine heat and not center fuel tanks it’s highly unlikely it was one.

 

[777 fixer]

And what makes you think these missiles, were "heat seeker's"? There are many out there that are not!

Which ones? There are no radar guided MANPADS. Now there are line of sight MANPADS. However they require more training in order to use effectively. Heat seekers like the SA-7, SA-14, Stinger are much more common and easier to use.