Was a Jet Shot At In LA?
One of my readers posted the above question to me yesterday. So I did a little research on the supercomputer, and got a BIG FAT NADA from it. Then last night while working on a Killian's and watching the Bucks beat the Wizards, I ran across this link at Free Republic, where it has been discussed, with comments ranging from "it was a bottle rocket" to "Bush did it".
Witnit has a bunch of stuff on it, including speculation on the missile type.
There are some other theories that are credible on it, including that the pilot caught a glimpse of another plane landing, and the "stream" he saw past the window was actually fuel being dumped to make landing weight. Which would bring up some air traffic control issues. Or a contrail from another plane (the FBI's current explaination).
This morning, though, my interest is more piqued in this topic, because of an Op/Ed piece in the Washington Post written by Richard Lugar and Barrack Obama.
It deals with the "Junkyard of War" and the amount of weapons found in Iraq, and specifically the number of man portable missiles that are floating around the world, unaccounted for. Most of you know them by the name Stinger, which is the US made model, but there are others out there, like the Russian built SA-7 Grail .
So now I'm wondering, WTF, is this a coincidence, or could it be true? Did someone shoot a Stinger or Grail at a US flight out of LAX? It seems awful odd that a week after the reports come out about this, and get denied, we've got Senators writing pieces for newspapers about tracking these missiles.
I've flown in and out of that airport enough to know that it would be easy to get into the center parking garage, move to the roof for the shot, and be in the missiles envelope if you wanted to take such a shot right at takeoff. But the plane was at 6,000 feet, meaning the shooter would have had to be nearer the end of the runway.
I'm also enough of a realist to know that getting one into the country can't be that hard, toss it in the trunk with the 12 illegals you are taking to the lettuce fields. You'd probably never get caught.
So conspiracy theorists, please let me know what you think. Did someone try and shoot down that flight?
Witnit has a bunch of stuff on it, including speculation on the missile type.
There are some other theories that are credible on it, including that the pilot caught a glimpse of another plane landing, and the "stream" he saw past the window was actually fuel being dumped to make landing weight. Which would bring up some air traffic control issues. Or a contrail from another plane (the FBI's current explaination).
This morning, though, my interest is more piqued in this topic, because of an Op/Ed piece in the Washington Post written by Richard Lugar and Barrack Obama.
It deals with the "Junkyard of War" and the amount of weapons found in Iraq, and specifically the number of man portable missiles that are floating around the world, unaccounted for. Most of you know them by the name Stinger, which is the US made model, but there are others out there, like the Russian built SA-7 Grail .
So now I'm wondering, WTF, is this a coincidence, or could it be true? Did someone shoot a Stinger or Grail at a US flight out of LAX? It seems awful odd that a week after the reports come out about this, and get denied, we've got Senators writing pieces for newspapers about tracking these missiles.
I've flown in and out of that airport enough to know that it would be easy to get into the center parking garage, move to the roof for the shot, and be in the missiles envelope if you wanted to take such a shot right at takeoff. But the plane was at 6,000 feet, meaning the shooter would have had to be nearer the end of the runway.
I'm also enough of a realist to know that getting one into the country can't be that hard, toss it in the trunk with the 12 illegals you are taking to the lettuce fields. You'd probably never get caught.
So conspiracy theorists, please let me know what you think. Did someone try and shoot down that flight?
posted by Crazy Politico at 6:00 AM
7Comments:
It does indeed look like something happened and the idea of a bottle rocket is ridiculous. My questions are who and why? Was it a random attack or was there something or someone on that plane. I would like to see the passenger list.
Shop Rat- The bottle rocket theory is kind of stretching it.
PD- A large slow jumbo jet is an easy target. Using Capt. Donaldson's data though, his theory would mean that someone on a moving boat took a maximum kinematic range crossing shot with a 3rd generation stinger at target moving at 330 knots, which isn't slow.
Also, his witness on flt 217 claimed to have seen the flash of the rocket motor, except that if 217 is where Donaldson claims, the motor had been burnt out for nearly half a mile already, which makes that a pretty suspect statement.
Actually, Donaldson's theory, while improbable,is exponentially more likely than a manpad being shot from land, since the distance to the edge of the search field from land(7.5 miles) is about double the range of any know shoulder fired missile.
But I don't believe any of the "missile" theories. Salinger's documents were found to be from an e-mail hoax, not "French intelligence"
The east to west streak of light a few pilots reported nixes the idea of a land launch (along with range).
The aegis ship doing it was beaten to death, and it was easily shown none were anywhere within the flight envelope of their missiles.
So that leave's Donaldson's "man on a boat" theory, except that it would have been a near north-south shot based on the debris field, not east-west.
Do I discount the idea of a bomb on board in luggage, or other such things? No, they are much more credible, plausible and harder to disprove than the missile theory.
As for JP-5, there are at least 3 airline incident involving Boeing jets that are attributed to high fume content in tanks either causing, or contributing to crashes.
Fumes do explode. It's the secondary reason most military vessels, now that they use DFM (Which is basically JP5) use counterflooding in fuel tanks. It provides ballast, and removes any fumes, making a hit to a tank more survivable.
I'm not prone to conspiracy theories but I do have to say I suspect something odd in this case. Pilots are by nature are usually very aware of their surroundings. Add that to the fact that they aren't exactly known for oddball or kookie behavior. You can be guaranteed that this pilot saw something. That they'd even try to float the "bottle rocket" theory shows how hard they're trying to minimize this.
My question is are they trying to cover something up or do they honestly not have a clue what happened? Which option is better?
I'm not much on the conspiracies either (see above), but at the same time I'd like to see some more on this one also.
I posed the question because I had heard from someone else that the MSM was squelching the story, and thought you might have heard something about it.
I am not convinced that Flight 800 was shot down by a shoulder-launched missile. Unlike PD, I don't think that trhere is a preponderance of evidence in favor of it, and I am not into conspiracy theories.
It has long been a topic of discussion since 9/!! that a shoulder-launched missile would be an easy and effective means of terrorizing a counntry. That isn't news. One such attack nearly hit an Israeli-charterd jet in Kentya in 2002.
I find it hard to believe, however, that our government would order the squelching of a story about such an attack, and that even the MSM woyuld comply across the board.
I still need to look at your links, CP. Thanks for following up on this.
"JP5 just flat doesn't blow up from fumes. You can throw a lighted cigarrete into a buck of the stuff and it goes out."
Srry, PD, but this is ludicrous. You can throw a lit cigarette in a bucket of regular old gasoline, and it will go out too.
The reason is because the fumes aren't contained, and the speed at which the cigarette is thrown doesn't allow time for any tfumes that migt be present to ignite.
To state that this is proof positive that vapor fumes weren't responsible is too sweeping a statement and not exactly a theory based on any "scientific" methodology, or critical analysis.
Post a Comment
<< Home