Re: TWA 800: THE CAT IS OUT !!

James Rogers (
Wed, 13 Nov 1996 16:20:46 -0800

>Yes there are members who have not been properly "taken care of". Many
>women still do not feel like they are treated as part of the military,
>or only view it as a way to get free education, or try to use the system
>for personal aggrandizement. I've witnessed flase harassment cases
>personally. Not against myself, but against others. I was the key
>witness in a case in which two female airmen framed a male airman with
>such claims. If I had not overheard them talking about it beforehand,
>his life would be over.

I saw this twice in my relatively short military career. I too was witness
in one incident that the charges were intentionally fabricated. The problem
with women in the military is that too many of them *don't want* to be
treated on an equal basis with the men. They want a civilian life plus a
uniform. The much lower standards for women in the military only aggravates
and encourages this.

>I am not saying the truth may not come out. If some agency with
>equivalent power shows an interest in invesigating this in earnest, I
>can guarrantee that any witnesses will come out of the woodwork. Until
>such a time, the operating rule among lower ranking people is: COVER
>IT JAMMED DOWN THEIR THROATS. I've been there, done that, I know what I
>am talking about. Anyone with a tale to tell needs a lot of cover
>overhead to make it home.

This is very true. The military takes care of its own, and generally runs
on its own set of rules. Political or judicial action rarely has any impact
on the fundamental SOPs and culture of military life. You're either in all
the way or you won't last.

>> >> just don't think they could pull it off if they tried. Gov't employees
>> >> aren't that competent.
>> >
>> >US military personnel are not your regular government employees.
>> That's true, but we are talking about the military *plus* other government
>> agencies. I am hardly convinced that Bill Clinton loves, respects, and
>> would protect the U.S. military.
>But he loves himself and his own power far more than the Constitution.
>> >The facts are that mechanical failure of the sort necessary to have the
>> >failure that occured in that plane by itself has been determined to be
>> >fantastically unlikely. It is also a fact that they have only found bomb
>> >traces on sections of the plane where ordinances had been stored for
>> >shipment during Operation Desert Storm. THe traces they found were no
>> >where near that beleived needed to induce the blast the plane
>> >experienced. What is left?

A missile would leave significant residue traces if it impacted on the
plane. If the missile was proximity fused, it would leave a very
identifiable signature on parts of the plane due to the nature of proximity
detonations. Since it has not been mentioned anywhere, I will assume that a
proximity detonating missile did not bring down the plane.

The Navy's Standard missile (presumably the one used this scenario) most
likely uses a large composite warhead of RDX and TNT, both of which leave
significant chemical traces, especially TNT. However, no significant traces
have been found of any explosive.

Essentially all military explosives are detectable both by explosive
detection hardware (like TNC) and residue traces. Therefore, assuming that
the facts available are correct and true, then military explosives are not
involved. This would significantly lessen the possibility that the military
was directly involved.

HYPOTHESIS: There are much lesser known classes of explosives which 1) are
not detectable via normal explosive detection hardware, and 2) do not leave
chemical traces normally associated with explosives. This would force the
general requirement that the explosive was loaded on to the plane, not
delivered by missile. This would also generally show significant intent,
since these explosives would require custom manufacture by a knowledgeable
explosive chemist. In turn, this would imply a bit more intelligence and
resourcefulness than your average terrorist. If you suspect the government,
Sandia NL could easily produce the required compounds.

>> So it comes down to what we know and don't know. We know 100+ people
>> believe they saw a missile. We know eyewitnesses at night can be
>> unreliable. However, even if we decide they really did see a missile --
>> which I do not consider unreasonable -- I have heard no "facts" that prove
>> it was fired by a US Navy ship.

We must also consider the fact that more people might have thought they saw
a missile after it was suggested that it might have been a missile.
Suggestion can adversely influence what people believe.

>The Captains log has not been released to the public, and has been
>classfied. Until it is released, a suspect is still out there.

Which captain's log?

>> You can't argue *both* that the US Navy can keep anything quiet they want
>> *and* that you or others know it was the Navy -- unless there is objective
>> proof like photographs of the ship firing the missile, US Navy missile
>> debris washed ashore, or whatever. Otherwise, how did you find out what
>> they are so good at concealing?
>Witnesses and the public statement of a DEMOCRAT who has long experience
>in White House and other high level government business. 157 eye
>witnesses corroborating each other is a much bigger statistical lump to
>dismiss than just a few confused reports. If facts are not true, they
>typically are widely varied in being described by witnesses. When they
>all agree, that typically means that is accceptable as a fact.

Ummm..., yes and no. It means that they all *perceived* roughly the same
thing. Don't want to split hairs, but there is a difference. Witnesses are
a poor substitute for physical evidence.

-James Rogers