GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-19-2013, 12:43   #101
HollowHead
Firm member
 
HollowHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam
Posts: 23,093


Because of the altitude / distance and the speed of sound, the explosion heard by eyewitnesses happend before the flame trail but sounded as if it was after. HH
__________________
Never trust a pastor with a day job.

Sent from two coffee cans connected by a string.
HollowHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 12:44   #102
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,168
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
Are you trying to imply that an A-10 and a 747 have the same design requirements for amount of enemy (or friendly) fire that can be sustained and still in flying condition?

If you simply say that plane A=B because they are both "bypass turbofan powered twin engine airplanes" then is an F/A-18 the equivalent of a 787 Dreamliner? They both are "bypass turbofan powered twin engine airplane". The F/A-18 uses 2 GE f404 low bypass engines and the dreamliner uses either 2 GE or 2 RR engines.
I'm implying that your talking about and trying to state facts about something you don't have a clue about.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 12:44   #103
jeanderson
Platinum Membership
Toga!... Toga!
 
jeanderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 2,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hicksville Kid View Post
I know someone that was interviewed by the FBI three different times. He told them what he told me. He saw a streak coming from the ocean, rising into the sky, disappearing, an explosion and the parts falling. He was at a dock on the south shore after a day of fishing.

To me, it was a missile.
Interesting that so many in this forum, including myself, recall these witnesses seeing a streak. More interesting is the fact that these witnesses' accounts vanished from the stories in the media within a couple of days after the tragedy.
__________________
"I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel like the acorn community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America."

– Ted Nugent
jeanderson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 12:50   #104
HKUSP9SD
Senior Member
 
HKUSP9SD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: AZ
Posts: 139
The answer everyone is looking for is simple. We will never know.

No matter who comes forward and says whatever, we will be told whatever the government wants us to believe. Same as 9/11, same as sandy hook.

The ones that believe it are sheep and everyone else, conspiracy theorist's.
HKUSP9SD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 12:51   #105
tsmo1066
Happy Smiley
 
tsmo1066's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7,257


Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanderson View Post
Interesting that so many in this forum, including myself, recall these witnesses seeing a streak. More interesting is the fact that these witnesses' accounts vanished from the stories in the media within a couple of days after the tragedy.
Not sure if I follow you on that one. Nearly every story I've read about Flight 800 has included mention of the eyewitness accounts of streaks. As many others have mentioned, however, these eyewitness accounts are to be expected given the flight pattern of the aircraft after the explosion. The tail-heavy craft was climbing and burning post-explosion until it eventually broke up. Eyewitnesses that heard the explosion would have looked up and seen what appeared to be a streak moving upward in the sky.
__________________
Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. - Benjamin Franklin
tsmo1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 12:55   #106
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,168
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Also, the break up of a flaming aircraft would be viewed as an explosion by many on the ground.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 12:57   #107
jeanderson
Platinum Membership
Toga!... Toga!
 
jeanderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 2,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmo1066 View Post
Not sure if I follow you on that one. Nearly every story I've read about Flight 800 has included mention of the eyewitness accounts of streaks. As many others have mentioned, however, these eyewitness accounts are to be expected given the flight pattern of the aircraft after the explosion. The tail-heavy craft was climbing and burning post-explosion until it eventually broke up. Eyewitnesses that heard the explosion would have looked up and seen what appeared to be a streak moving upward in the sky.
Perhaps just my recollection (or lack thereof). I just seemed to remember the witness stories of a streak in the sky on all the news networks right after it happened. Once the theory of a fuel tank explosion was proposed, there was no more talk of missiles or what these people saw.
__________________
"I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel like the acorn community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America."

– Ted Nugent
jeanderson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:00   #108
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,837
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
Did you ever wonder why they put the engines of an A-10 on the outside of the aircraft?

Do you think it is better for a heat seaker to blow off an engine like the pic I posted above or to have it essentially dig it out of the aircraft?

You say you worked on the cockpit. Different mission there. You can't let the pilot get blown out of an aicraft.
So you are saying an A-10 has different design considerations than a 747? Is that what you are saying?

The one thing that you assume with a heat seeker blowing off an engine is a hit on an engine. Even the best equipment doesnt always hit where it intends to hit.

So, will any of you "experts" come out and flatly say the following?

1) A missile cannot hit anything other than an engine on an airplane even if the missile has targeted an engine.
2) A few pounds of explosives cannot take a commercial aircraft out of the sky.
3) An external detonation at or very near a main fuel tank will not cause additional explosions or flames in the fuel tank.

If you cannot claim these, then you are simply speculating and why would your speculation be more informative than investigators who have seen the physical evidence and drew conclusions?
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:02   #109
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,837
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
I'm implying that your talking about and trying to state facts about something you don't have a clue about.
And I don put on glasses and believe everything the govt says.

You are trying to say you saw an A-10 damaged and flew back, therefor a 747 over NY is the same beast. We can debate who doesnt have a clue
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:03   #110
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,168
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Stick to medical equipment. Your out of your depth.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:04   #111
CarryTexas
Senior Member
 
CarryTexas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
Where would you have to be standing in relation to the plane to be able to get that shot off?

They were over water by a decent distance. Would it have to have been done from a boat or could it have been pulled off from land?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app
If it were to have a chance of working the missile would have to have been fired from a boat. Flt. 800 would have to be on a path to fly directly over the firing point.

It would also have to be a head-on shot with the intercept being very close to directly over or just infront of the point of firing.
__________________
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. - Bill of Rights of the United States.
CarryTexas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:07   #112
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
So you are saying an A-10 has different design considerations than a 747? Is that what you are saying?

The one thing that you assume with a heat seeker blowing off an engine is a hit on an engine. Even the best equipment doesnt always hit where it intends to hit.

So, will any of you "experts" come out and flatly say the following?

1) A missile cannot hit anything other than an engine on an airplane even if the missile has targeted an engine.
2) A few pounds of explosives cannot take a commercial aircraft out of the sky.
3) An external detonation at or very near a main fuel tank will not cause additional explosions or flames in the fuel tank.

If you cannot claim these, then you are simply speculating and why would your speculation be more informative than investigators who have seen the physical evidence and drew conclusions?
The engines of an A-10 are on the outside of the aircraft.

The engines of a 747 are on the outside of the aircraft.

Did you see the pic of the jet I posted that took a MANPAD?

You seem to think of yourself as being smart. Drop your biases and think.
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:13   #113
Booker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,854
I know that SM-2MR surface to air missles will bring down an airliner.

Just ask the people on Iran Air Flight 655 on July 3, 1988.

Oops, we can't ask them **** cause they're all dead!


When Uncle Sam did the reconstruction of the fuel tank explosion test on an old French 747, they used a Propane/Air mixture in the tank. As my BBQ grill will confirm, a small spark will cause that mixture to explode! But are Jet Fuel/Air mixtuxes that explosive.

Also weird was the traces of 3 different types of explosive residue, including PETN, discovered on the wreckage were sold to the public as "glue" used in making the seats on the 747.

When it comes down to believing the govt or the tin-foil hatters, I still don't believe the govt!
Booker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:17   #114
Glocksanity
Senior Member
 
Glocksanity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Los Angeles, Man, Los Angeles
Posts: 1,723
The AEIGS defense missile system was being tested at that time off Long Island. The missile that hit the plane was supposed to be the missile that was to be shot down, but instead it hit the plane.

No way the US Government could allow that to be revealed, thus the cover-up.

Pretty simple explanation.

But, of course, the government never lies, especially when it comes to military self defense issues regarding national security.
__________________
G21~G26~G30~G34

Sic semper evello mortem Tyrannis!
Glocksanity is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:17   #115
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,168
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booker View Post
I know that SM-2MR surface to air missles will bring down an airliner.

Just ask the people on Iran Air Flight 655 on July 3, 1988.

Oops, we can't ask them **** cause they're all dead!


When Uncle Sam did the reconstruction of the fuel tank explosion test on an old French 747, they used a Propane/Air mixture in the tank. As my BBQ grill will confirm, a small spark will cause that mixture to explode! But are Jet Fuel/Air mixtuxes that explosive.

Also weird was the traces of 3 different types of explosive residue, including PETN, discovered on the wreckage were sold to the public as "glue" used in making the seats on the 747.

When it comes down to believing the govt or the tin-foil hatters, I still don't believe the govt!
SM2 would also have A been launched from a ship with over 300 crewmembers. It also would have done significantly more damage.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:17   #116
tsmo1066
Happy Smiley
 
tsmo1066's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7,257


Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanderson View Post
Perhaps just my recollection (or lack thereof). I just seemed to remember the witness stories of a streak in the sky on all the news networks right after it happened. Once the theory of a fuel tank explosion was proposed, there was no more talk of missiles or what these people saw.
I think maybe some of the "media feeding frenzy" urgency around those eyewitness accounts may have bled out after it was pointed out that seeing a "missile streak" in the sky doesn't mean that there was a missile, and that seeing such is in fact consistent with the government's version of events.

I still see it mentioned in many of the articles, but it isn't usually hyped up under a "Proof that the Feds are Lying" style headline anymore.
__________________
Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. - Benjamin Franklin
tsmo1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:19   #117
HollowHead
Firm member
 
HollowHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam
Posts: 23,093


Quote:
Originally Posted by CarryTexas View Post
If it were to have a chance of working the missile would have to have been fired from a boat. Flt. 800 would have to be on a path to fly directly over the firing point.

It would also have to be a head-on shot with the intercept being very close to directly over or just infront of the point of firing.
Exactly. IIRC, eyewitnesses all describe the fire trail as going from west to east. A missle hit would have to have come from east to west. HH
__________________
Never trust a pastor with a day job.

Sent from two coffee cans connected by a string.
HollowHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:21   #118
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booker View Post
I know that SM-2MR surface to air missles will bring down an airliner.

Just ask the people on Iran Air Flight 655 on July 3, 1988.

Oops, we can't ask them **** cause they're all dead!


When Uncle Sam did the reconstruction of the fuel tank explosion test on an old French 747, they used a Propane/Air mixture in the tank. As my BBQ grill will confirm, a small spark will cause that mixture to explode! But are Jet Fuel/Air mixtuxes that explosive.

Also weird was the traces of 3 different types of explosive residue, including PETN, discovered on the wreckage were sold to the public as "glue" used in making the seats on the 747.

When it comes down to believing the govt or the tin-foil hatters, I still don't believe the govt!
You mean the Iran Air flight shot down by the Navy?

You think an entire crew has remained silent?
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:23   #119
tsmo1066
Happy Smiley
 
tsmo1066's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7,257


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glocksanity View Post
The AEIGS defense missile system was being tested at that time off Long Island. The missile that hit the plane was supposed to be the missile that was to be shot down, but instead it hit the plane.

No way the US Government could allow that to be revealed, thus the cover-up.

Pretty simple explanation.

But, of course, the government never lies, especially when it comes to military self defense issues regarding national security.
How does one "cover up" a ship-borne missile launch that would have to have been witnessed by at least 350 Navy crew-members, most of them 18 and 19 year old kids?
__________________
Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. - Benjamin Franklin
tsmo1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:25   #120
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,168
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glocksanity View Post
The AEIGS defense missile system was being tested at that time off Long Island. The missile that hit the plane was supposed to be the missile that was to be shot down, but instead it hit the plane.

No way the US Government could allow that to be revealed, thus the cover-up.

Pretty simple explanation.

But, of course, the government never lies, especially when it comes to military self defense issues regarding national security.
The first test flight of a SM-3, the anti ballistic missile missile, wasn't till 99.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:26   #121
Reheater
Yarr
 
Reheater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Where the Army sends me
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
And I don put on glasses and believe everything the govt says.

You are trying to say you saw an A-10 damaged and flew back, therefor a 747 over NY is the same beast. We can debate who doesnt have a clue
A-10 not withstanding, the missiles available outside of the most advanced Stinger series at the time were incapable of a lead angle shot due to seeker restriction. You can only see exhaust plume and hot metal parts, meaning they would have to chase flight 800 to track it. That means your shooting at a 13000 foot target moving away at over 300 knots... That's out of the engagement envelope for anything out there.

And no I don't believe a 3.8 lbs fragmentary warhead would have anything like the probability of kill you seem to demand that it has. It would have hit the engine, that motor would go **** up and probably catch fire. Not blown the front half of the aircraft apart and left them unable to make even a mayday call.
__________________
Napalm solves a lot more problems then prayer.
Reheater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:29   #122
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarryTexas View Post
If it were to have a chance of working the missile would have to have been fired from a boat. Flt. 800 would have to be on a path to fly directly over the firing point.

It would also have to be a head-on shot with the intercept being very close to directly over or just infront of the point of firing.
That's what I was thinking.

Would the fuel have been gone by that point and it would be coasting?
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:30   #123
Anon1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmo1066 View Post
How does one "cover up" a ship-borne missile launch that would have to have been witnessed by at least 350 Navy crew-members, most of them 18 and 19 year old kids?
Are you implying that everyone on the ship would be on deck at the time of a missile launch?
Anon1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:32   #124
Reheater
Yarr
 
Reheater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Where the Army sends me
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booker View Post

When Uncle Sam did the reconstruction of the fuel tank explosion test on an old French 747, they used a Propane/Air mixture in the tank. As my BBQ grill will confirm, a small spark will cause that mixture to explode! But are Jet Fuel/Air mixtuxes that explosive.
In commercial air liners with no nitrogen inerting unit, yes as fuel is burned off they become very explosive. Thats why after this and the two other mentioned fuel cell explosions the FAA made the recommendation to equip all passenger liners with one. It would have cost billions of dollars to retrofit though so they found other means. We use them in military aircraft for exactly that reason, oxygen is purged and replaced with non flammable gas to keep the cell from being as explosive.

Simple rule, fuel burns... Vapor explodes.
__________________
Napalm solves a lot more problems then prayer.

Last edited by Reheater; 06-19-2013 at 13:36..
Reheater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 13:32   #125
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anon1 View Post
Are you implying that everyone on the ship would be on deck at the time of a missile launch?
Are you implying that a missile taking off from a ship is quiet enough no one will hear it?
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
anti-conspiracy kooks, reynolds heavy duty, truthers lol
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:47.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 889
238 Members
651 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42