From: roc-owner@xmission.com To: roc-digest@xmission.com Subject: roc Digest V2 #31 Reply-To: roc@xmission.com Errors-To: roc-owner@xmission.com Precedence: roc Digest Wednesday, 24 July 1996 Volume 02 : Number 031 In this issue: Re: other lists Re: (fwd) Re: CN:Rumor Mill:Multiple Stingers/ Sales Effort Persists (fwd) Re: (fwd) Re: CN:Rumor Mill:Multiple Stingers/ Sales Effort Persists (fwd) MISSILE MIGHT HAVE DOWNed FLT 800 (fwd) More TWA800 stuff (7/23/96) Re: (fwd) Re: CN:Rumor Mill:Multiple Stingers/ Sales Effort Persists (fwd) Re: (fwd) Re: CN:Rumor Mill:Multiple Stingers/ Sales Effort Persists (fwd) Was TWA 800 Hit By a Stinger? (fwd) See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the roc or roc-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 16:30:41 PST Subject: Re: other lists On Jul 23, Patrick Mccutcheon wrote: >Hi all, >I have been offline for about 9 months. I used to be subscribed to several >lists (e.g. no-con-con, ntb, rkba (tho I dropped that one due to bandwidth >noise on off-topic subjects like 'racoons in attic', etc.), usa-forever,... >etc.). I know that Howard Bloom's server discontinued lists, so several >disappeared. Right now I'm only subscribed to ROC, but I would like to get >on a couple/few more that address Patriot issues, especially sovereignty, >common law, gov abuse, etc. Are there others that are similar to the above >mentioned that are still 'alive'? I see that Monte is posting here (Hey >Monte!), but haven't seen anything from Charles Sharp or CAJI (publishes >Veritas). If anyone can help with list server addresses, please post to ROC >(others may like to see it as well) or, if that's inappropriate, to me >personally. > >Thanks in advance >Patrick McCutcheon Here's a couple for you. fap@world.std.com noban@mainstream.com Also, NRA.org has several Alert/other lists. - -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------ From: Joe Sylvester Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 23:14:01 -0500 Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: CN:Rumor Mill:Multiple Stingers/ Sales Effort Persists (fwd) At 12:35 PM 7/23/96 -0500, you wrote: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: rivero@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) > > > I am beginning to be of the opinion that what we have here is a horrible >accident (yet another botch up) being covered up with a hasty attempt to >politically capitalize the event by claiming "terrorist Stinger". > > If it was a missile, it was something far more powerful than a Stinger. > Thor (not the MRBM) perhaps? Flying crowbar from space with seeker. If you have re-entry velocity, you don't need a warhead. :) . The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------ From: Joe Sylvester Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 23:33:48 -0500 Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: CN:Rumor Mill:Multiple Stingers/ Sales Effort Persists (fwd) At 07:17 PM 7/23/96 PST, you wrote: >O > >While ELF, (Extremely Low Frequency), with a lot of power and a shire >sized buried antenna array, can transmit through the earth, it's my >understanding that submarines have to bury an antenna wire in the mud to >pick it up. I could be wrong on the pick up wire there, but it takes hours >to receive a sentence or two that way. They just trail a very long wire, attached to a float or floats to allow adjustment of the depth of the antenna. This is important because even ELF doesn't really penetrate seawater. There is something called the skin effect whereby radio (or other em waves) penetrate into a conductor, like seawater, but with very sever attenuation. The depth of this skin effect is proportional to the wavelength, which for ELF is very long. Free space, or in air, wavelenght for ELF of say 30 K Hz woud be 10,000 meters or 10 Kilometers or about 6 miles. Thats the reason why the antennas have to be so darn big. > >Normal Radios just don't broadcast. You can as they say, _receive_ a Radio >transmission on a bedsprings, but for _transmitting_ a signal, the antenna >dimensions are an _extremely_ picky sort of thing. That's in air or vacuum. >In water, it just don't work at all. Hence SONAR, (sound waves), are used >there instead of RADAR or Radio waves. Reciprocity would say that either receive or transmit has the same effect. The only difference is one of matching the impedance, (like resistance only complex) of the antenna to that of the transmitter, so that most of the power does indeed go to the antenna and out into space. With a matching network, you can transmitt with that bedsprings as well as receive, Don't know what the pattern of a bedspring might look like though. > >As to Active/Inactive SONAR, with Inactive you're listening an external >source, and with Active You both supply the sound and listen to it. If no >one else is down there, you have to source it, assuming your target makes no >noise. Active is better here as someone else might not be pinging your area >just when you need it. I doubt that the Black Boxes would be putting much >noise or Radio out for very long if they do at all. Their business after >all is _recording_ data. If they broadcasted it as well, no one would need >to sarch for them, all they'd have to do is listen for them, and record it >again. > The pinger doesn't transmitt any information, other than "Here I am, come and get me" The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------ From: "Donna J. Logan" Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 06:23:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: MISSILE MIGHT HAVE DOWNed FLT 800 (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:50:23 -0700 From: ray673@best.com Subject: MISSILE MIGHT HAVE DOWNed FLT 800 ENN DAILY REPORT Exclusive to EmergencyNet NEWS Service Tuesday, July 23, 1996 Vol. 2 - 205 HOW A MISSILE MIGHT HAVE BROUGHT DOWN TWA FLT 800 By: Ron Lewis CHIEF MILITARY & AVIATION ANALYST THE INTELLIGYST GROUP Information just received indicates the FBI is enhancing its search for boat operators in the area of the TWA 747 downing on 17 July 96 near Long Island, New York. This would imply that they may believe strongly in the likelihood that a surface-to-air missile downed the jet. It may also mean nothing more than that they are trying to cover all bases in the investigation, which is wise at this point. If this incident was the result of a missile attack, there are some interesting aspects of the wreckage and the nature of the 747 that would possibly fit such a scenario. 1) Wreckage of the tail section shows no burns or soot, indicating it separated early in the event. A photo of the lower section of the vertical stabilizer does show, however a crease in the leading edge and numerous small chips and dings in the surface paint (black & white photo precludes examination of white undercoat or bare metal in red surface) that seem to splay backward and upward. This is similar to the type of damage seen in photos of aircraft struck by small, shoulder-fired, IR-guided surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) of the SA-7/14/16/18 GRAIL/GREMLIN/ GIMLET/GROUSE and FIM-92 Stinger types. 2) The left wingtip, including the area which should have the extended range fuel tank, shows no evidence of fire as well. If the engines on the left side had been hit, the fuel tank would likely have suffered a fire before the tail separated. There is no evidence this occurred. 3) Infrared-guided (popularly described as heat-seeking) missiles home in on hot metal and exhaust gases from engines, and the 747 has four main engines, two on each wing. However, most people do not realize that there is a smaller jet engine housed in the rear of the fuselage tail section, with an exhaust port at the very tip. This small turbine engine is the Auxiliary Power Unit or APU. 4) Of the many missiles listed above, only the SA-14 GREMLIN/ SA-16 GIMLET/ SA-18 GROUSE are likely to have had the range and altitude capability to reach the altitude the 747 was traveling at the time it was lost, with the SA-18 having the best chance, but any of them could have conceivably been the weapon, assuming that a SAM was involved. 5) If an IR SAM were used, wouldn't it head for the main engines? Yes, but the hot effluent from four engines, as well as the heat from the APU port would trail behind the target and guide the missile toward the aircraft center. The APU is not likely to have been operating, as it provides ground power, but the aircraft was caught on the ground for an extended period of time, with the APU running virtually the entire time. It would have had only something near 30 minutes to cool down before the incident and is likely to have still been emanating IR energy. 6) A SAM fired in this scenario would have to have been mounted on or fired from a boat or other platform out on the water. Spetsnaz special forces have been known be equipped with a remote-controlled launcher which responds to certain levels of jet noise. Is it possible that a platform positioned directly under an aircraft flight path might have launched such a missile? Is it also possible that this so-called platform might be designed to self-destruct to hide evidence, or could be under the debris of a crashing jet? Hard to tell but not too impossible to consider. It is interesting that there seems to have been no concern over any boats lost at sea that night, despite the fact that numerous boats were reported in the area and could have been victims of the crash debris. The FBI is reportedly looking for small boats from Long Island but perhaps the search should be widened to include not only docks in the northeast United States but others coming from further north or south. If this was the method of attack, the boat would probably be large enough to hide the backblast and flare of initial launch in a hold or cabin space below deck. The perpetrators would also want a vessel large enough and fast enough to be ocean-going and capable of running from pursuit craft. 7) My preliminary research of photos of the retrieved wreckage indicates that the tail section separated early in the event. My first assumption is that a bomb on board the aircraft, either in the rear lavatory or possibly in the rear cargo hold, detonated, fatally weakening the rear fuselage and blowing the tail off. Structural failure of this kind, particularly with some of the blast vented out through the exit doors on either side of the rear fuselage, could cause severe structural collapse without venting bomb fragments or residue into the bodies of victims seated forward of the rear lavatory. The explosive decompression which would result from this scenario would blow shoes and other clothing off of the victims and, indeed, we have reports of several bodies found nude and virtually all without shoes. 8) A small IR-guided missile would damage or destroy an engine but the hot fragments would likely ignite an immediate fireball. This is not reported to have happened until the aircraft split into large chunks. A hit on one of the four engines (a 747 is capable of flying with only two engines) would not disable communications and the pilots would likely have enough time to issue a call for help, announce an emergency, etc. Removal of the tail section, however, would cut links to the VOR radio antenna mounted atop the vertical stabilizer. 9) But IR missiles go after IR energy, common associated with heat. Why wouldn't it go after one of the engines? It would, but if it was approaching from the rear, it would encounter a large volume of hot gas trailing behind the aircraft. This would be the first thing to home in on, and it would likely be concentrated in the slipstream behind the tail. The next thing the missile seeker might focus on is the hot metal of the just-operated APU exhaust, so it probably would home in on the CENTER of the aircraft. At this point, however, it would now likely be close enough to pick up the much greater IR energy emanating from the exhausts of the main engines. If homed in on the centerline of the aircraft and equally influenced by two engines on either side, the missile might not have been able to discriminate between the two similar sources and "decide" on a course before its own self-destruct mechanism came into play and detonated the missile toward the rear fuselage. Fragments detonated by the "grazing fuse" (one of two, the other being a contact fuse) would be likely to travel in a 360-degree sphere. It is unlikely that any of these fragments would penetrate deeply enough through the lower fuselage to impact any bodies and leave telltale signs of blast fragments, burn marks or chemical residue. This may be one reason why investigators are so puzzled by the condition of the bodies recovered thus far. 10) One of the flap track fairings has a hole punched into it from the bottom. This is WELL aft of the engines, meaning that something punched through the fairing but it is not likely to have been fragments of a disabled engine. It is also possible that this damage is post-event damage due to contact with other wreckage, but the type of damage appears to be something other than post-event damage. 11) In addition to the nicks and dings in the paint of the tail pieces recovered, the left wingtip has a revealing gash, as though something cut through the tip. This could, of course, be post-event damage related to contact with other debris, but it may bear closer examination, to determine whether or not something sliced through it in the air. Could a missile have detonated below, above, or off to one side of the aircraft, disabling the wing, damaging the tail, or compromising the fuselage integrity? There is simply not enough evidence on which to base an informed opinion at this point. In fact, all of the above information is hypothetical and should be considered very preliminary, more along the lines of an educated guess. The intent here is not to provide conclusive answers but to examine the known facts and eyewitness accounts, and to try to "brainstorm" the event to see if a SAM scenario is plausible, based upon the known capabilities of that class of weapon. Iran or their proxies in the Hizbollah movement remain high on the list of possible culprits. In addition, investigators should also look at Iraq, for obvious reasons and at Syria, Iran, Libya and even possibly Cuba or Serbia. In recent weeks, the United States has imposed increased economic sanctions on Iran and Libya, as well as Cuba. Syria has been threatened with sanctions and Bosnian Serb leader Radocan Karadzic has been forced from power based upon American pressure. A recent terrorism conference in Tehran, however, puts Iran at the top of the list. Hizbollah guerrillas are the most likely suspects as the agents who would actually carry out any attack on US targets. In early May, I submitted an article to several newspapers, stating that Hizbollah guerrillas would strike at the US and US interests in retaliation for the United States' sole support of Israel in the wake of the massacre of civilians at the UN compound in Qana, southern Lebanon. To date, the San Diego Union-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times and USA TODAY have all failed to act on this op-ed piece warning of increased threat to US citizens and personnel. I believe that the Dhahran bombing in Saudi Arabia and the downing of Flight 800 may be connected. If so, there will be more such attacks in the very near future, not just in the US and not necessarily involving aircraft only. In addition to the Olympics in Atlanta, federal authorities should examine the possibility of strikes against the upcoming Democratic Convention in Chicago and the Republican Convention in San Diego. (These comments are the opinion/analysis of Mr. Lewis and may not reflect the position or opinion of EmergencyNet News, the Emergency Response & Research Institute, or its editorial staff. They are provided here in the furtherance of an open and honest debate regarding this horrendous tragedy. Mr. Lewis can be reached at: INTELLIGYST@worldnet.att.net) Return to the ENN News Page... - ------------------------------ "A tiny chip implanted inside the human body to send and receive radio messages, long a popular delusion among paranoids, is likely to be marketed as a consumer item early in the next century." CHICAGO TRIBUNE May 7, 1996 - ------------------------------- To subscribe for FREE to Prophe-Zine, write to ray673@best.com http://www.best.com/~ray673/pzhome.html God never closes a door, without opening a window. ------------------------------ From: "Donna J. Logan" Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 07:13:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: More TWA800 stuff (7/23/96) FWIW.... Just announced on WABC-AM that two "mysterious" men rented a slip at a marina in the Moriches area for a 60-foot yacht on the Tuesday before the crash....they paid the $66 deposit for the season, left the boat at the slip, and weren't seen again. On Wednesday, two hours before the TWA crash, a third "mysterious" man came and took the boat out, and it and the 3 men have not been seen since (forfeiting the $66 deposit).... :-/ ------------------------------ From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 96 05:36:27 PST Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: CN:Rumor Mill:Multiple Stingers/ Sales Effort Persists (fwd) On Jul 23, Joe Sylvester wrote: >At 07:17 PM 7/23/96 PST, you wrote: [snip] I Wrote: >>Normal Radios just don't broadcast. You can as they say, _receive_ a Radio >>transmission on a bedsprings, but for _transmitting_ a signal, the antenna >>dimensions are an _extremely_ picky sort of thing. That's in air or vacuum. >>In water, it just don't work at all. Hence SONAR, (sound waves), are used >>there instead of RADAR or Radio waves. > >Reciprocity would say that either receive or transmit has the same effect. >The only difference is one of matching the impedance, (like resistance only >complex) of the antenna to that of the transmitter, so that most of the >power does indeed go to the antenna and out into space. > >With a matching network, you can transmitt with that bedsprings as well as >receive, Don't know what the pattern of a bedspring might look like though. Probably similar to that of a "Sturba Curtain", (bi-directioal), assuming the bedsprings were a quarter wave length, though the coils might wind up having some sort of trap effect. While an impedance matcing network will work, you lose a lot on the power output of the signal. I think that's a function of just how much out of match the antenna in question is at what requency. Even an antenna whose length is properly cut for a particular frequency range will lose power output if the inputs aren't properly matched to it. Sounds like you've "rolled your own" too. :-) - -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------ From: Joe Sylvester Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 19:44:54 -0500 Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: CN:Rumor Mill:Multiple Stingers/ Sales Effort Persists (fwd) At 05:53 PM 7/23/96 -0600, you wrote: >But why should they be using Active Sonar to find black boxes or >wreckage... Having read a lot of Tom Clancy novels... :-) > >Seems more likely that they would want to radio triangulate on the radio >emmissions these things are supposed to put out... Radio, except the low and very low frequencies (low starts just below the AM band) does not penetrate water, especially salt water, might as well try to transmitt/recieve from inside a metal box. However that is pretty much what they would do if they could "hear" the sonic pings from the black boxes. Given that they cannot hear the pings, using active sonar is all that's left for wide area search. The vaious mini-subs and such will be good for exploring areas that the sonar has found something that might be of interest in. This not hearing the black boxes pinging is a very strange deal, one of the Value Jet black boxes, from an older vintage aircraft and an airline not known as a stickler for maintence, survived a crash where the aircraft plunged through shallow water and dug a hole in more or less solid rock, soft rock to be sure, and was heard pinging from under the swamp, while the other one was apparently also pinging but it couldn't be heard because it was buried in mud and/or debri. Unless of course the TWA's FDR and CVR were heavily damaged by whatever brought the A/C down. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------ From: "Donna J. Logan" Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:46:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Was TWA 800 Hit By a Stinger? (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 11:20:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Virginia McMillan Subject: Was TWA 800 Hit By a Stinger? C O N S E R V A T I V E C O N S E N S U S (tm) ***************************************************************** Events * Analysis * Forecasts * Commentary * Readers' Opinions ***************************************************************** I N T E L L I G E N C E ::: World, National, Regional B R I E F I N G Distribution: World Editor's Desk COPYRIGHT 1996 by Conservative Consensus, ISSN 1074-245X. Complimentary email subscription and Website below. QUOTATION and redistribution are encouraged, for private, non-commercial use, provided nothing is changed and our headers and trailers remain intact. V2XC44 Was TWA 800 Hit By a Stinger? By Charles Harnett Public attention to the loss of TWA jetliner Flight 800 has centered about an onboard explosion or a mechanical malfunction. The latter is the pet explanation of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), whose expertise lies in ferretting out conventional causes of airliner disasters. Terrorist experts, at least in this latest airline tragedy, tend to favor the idea that a bomb planted in the cargo bay may have accounted for the crash. The possibility of a midair collision has also been considered, if only briefly, but little has been said about the possibility that the TWA800 could have been purposely shot down by terrorists. For years, government officials have dreaded the idea that an airliner could be shot down rather easily by a terrorist or demented individual. Not only has such a shootdown been seen as a sure bet for the perpetrator -- who could get off a round or two as a jetliner is taking off or landing -- but might give a terrorist a good chance of getting away free and clear, long before authorities could be on the trail. In the 1970's, safety officials expressed concern about how an aircraft taking off could be hit and downed by heavy weapons fire. But with successful deployment of the American Stinger missile against Soviet aircraft by Afghan rebels in the 1980's, such highly portable, lightweight anti-aircraft missiles were spoken of only in hushed tones when it came to their possible use by terrorists near American airports. There was little mention of them in the American press. In the case of TWA Flight 800, is there any evidence that the huge jet-liner was shot down by a tiny Stinger-type missile? Only two days after the crash, and before any appreciable amount of wreckage has been found, the answer is a definite YES. Before looking at the evidence, it would be helpful to know a little about the Stinger's background and capability. The Stinger, a product of Hughes Missile Systems Company (Tucson, Arizona), has been in America's arsenal of advanced weapons systems for some 20 years. It is currently deployed by all branches of the military service. It is common knowledge that U. S. agents supplied Afghan rebels with a considerable number of Stingers during fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan. In fact, the basic Stinger accounted for the downing of some 270 Soviet helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft with the phenomenal success rate of nearly 80%. The small, shoulder-launched missile was credited with playing an important role in stopping air assault operations and forcing the Soviets to withdraw. The Stinger is a marvel of modern technology. Superficially, it appears similar to the Bazooka anti-tank weapon of World War II...but only superficially. The Stinger is normally operated by a crew of two, but can be carried, positioned and fired by a single person due to its very small size, light weight and the fact that it is completely self-contained. So portable is it that it can be carried easily in a conventional civilian vehicle. In size, it is only five feet long with a diameter of just two and three quarter inches. It weighs but 23 pounds. Its range of four kilometers is more than adequate for shooting down an airliner on approach or departure when it is launched miles away from the airport runway. Maximum speed enroute to its target is Mach 2, or twice the speed of sound. The Stinger is launched from a shoulder-held tube, which is aimed somewhat ahead of its target. The missile is launched upward by a tiny propulsion system, while a built-in scanner looks for a target, usually one that emits heat from engine exhaust. Technically speaking, it is passively guided by an infrared/ultraviolet homing system; it employs an image-scanning technique that allows it to discriminate among targets, flares and background clutter. In addition, it is capable of adjusting the strike point to different vulnerable portions of an aircraft to assure maximized lethality. High speed, hit-to-kill accuracy, and highly explosive warhead virtually assure destruction of the target. So advanced is the Stinger and its continuing enhancements, that the US military expects to be using it well into the next century. So, how would a terrorist get his hands on a Stinger? It's known that more Stinger's were given to the Afghan rebels than were ever used, and intelligence sources believe that some were later sold to China. According to insiders, China has produced improved "knock-offs" -- cheap but highly effective copies -- and has been supplying them to third-world countries such as Iran. If this is so, Stinger-type missiles may be in the inventory of terrorists world-wide. Former Soviet states are rumored to have their own version, some of these being sold on the black market to the highest bidders. Assuming that a terrorist armed with a single Stinger shot down Flight 800, how could he (or she) have pulled it off? Simply enough, the shooter would be positioned at a point well away from JFK Airport and in the direction of the target's line of flight -- that is, somewhere along the narrow strip of Long Island stretching from JFK eastward into the Atlantic. From mere observation of jetliners as they depart, it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to locate a safe, secluded spot close to the jet's route where it climbs out from the airport's traffic pattern. Ideally, the spot would be at a point where the missile, once launched, could reach its target well before exceeding its own range of 4 kilometers. (If the jetliner had passed the launch spot by the time the Stinger was fired, this would decrease the likelihood of a hit, since the missile might not be able to catch the target traveling at 400 to 500 mph.) If, however, the Stinger was launched vertically, ahead of the jetliner -- that is, effectively "leading" the plane much as a hunter leads a fowl in flight, the missile would easily be able to reach the aircraft at an altitude as high as 12,000 feet without even approaching its own maximum range. This is known as proportional navigation with lead bias. Reuters today quoted a pilot flying minutes later over the spot where TWA Flight 800 exploded, noting that smoke from the explosion was below him at his altitude of 7,500 feet. This means that the ill-fated aircraft was well within the limits of a Stinger's range when it exploded. Technically, it would not have been difficult for a lone gunner to fire a Stinger and successfully shoot down the airliner. How about eyewitnesses? Do their observations in any way support the notion of a shootdown by a Stinger? At least two people quoted on CNN on Thursday, the day after the downing, had similar observations that seem to confirm a missile shootdown. One, a lady on Long Island, was standing outdoors when she heard a loud explosion, then looked up to see a ball of fire coming down. A former NTSB official was quick to dismiss her account (and that of most eyewitnesses, whom he dismissed as generally unreliable) by saying that it would have taken several seconds "after" the appearance of the fireball, for the explosion to be heard, citing the flash of lightning always being followed, not preceded by, a clap of thunder. However, if the explosion she heard was actually the sonic boom of a Stinger approaching the jetliner (the Stinger is supersonic, traveling up to Mach 2) then her account would be right on the mark. Reports that the FBI interrogated the woman for two hours (about a sighting that lasted less than a minute) seems to emphasize her credibility. A second witness, a male who had been fishing nearby, had a similar observation, except he referred to the sound specifically as a "sonic boom", and said he looked up to see a fireball descending in a rotating fashion, with a major part separating from the main fireball. Again, this would be an accurate description had a Stinger struck one of the plane's engines, causing the wing to separate and the fuel tanks to rupture and explode. On Friday evening (July 19), ABC news reporters quoted government sources as saying the explosion was a "deliberate criminal act", possibly an act of sabotage or the result of a hit by a "small missile". Again quoting unnamed government sources, it was stated that infrared imagery from an orbiting satellite may have detected a missile fired at the aircraft. A brief (and unrepeated) report on CNN spoke of a radar operator who was tracking the 747 seeing what appeared to be another but much smaller blip, circling the airliner just prior to the explosion. This could be precisely what a radar operator would see on his scope when a Stinger missile homes on an airplane. CNN dutifully stated that the report was dismissed by authorities as an "anomaly". If destruction of TWA800 was indeed caused by a Stinger-type missile, recovery of the wings and fuselage of the jetliner should, under analysis, indicate if a missile had struck the fuselage or an engine or a wing. Damage evidence would show whether the explosion originated "external" to the airplane, rather than internally (as in the case of an explosive carried aboard). If it was indeed a missile that downed the 747, this would raise questions about whether some recent air disasters (Valujet in Florida, Ron Brown's Air Force plane in Bosnia, and other unsolved crashes), may have also been caused by "small missiles". Such an admission by the government would open a Pandora's box of legitimate public concern over the safety of domestic air travel. Rapid trackdown of the perpetrators by the FBI and prompt disclosure might help restore public confidence in safe air travel and also in the government's investigative agencies. [Ed: Charles Harnett is a retired science writer.] ________________________ EDITOR: This briefing is based on an analysis of published reports by the author. Only the authorities on the scene investigating the crash who have access to the physical evidence will be able to make a final determination of the cause of the crash. WE WOULD caution subscribers, however, that even if authorities were to conclude that a surface-to-air missile destroyed TWA Flight 800, they would be unlikely to release such a conclusion to the American public. THE IMPLICATIONS for air travel in the US, and the Dow Jones Transportation Index, are among the more obvious considerations they would have in mind. The implications for US foreign policy are immense. In the 11 Oct. 1994 Conservative Consensus we reported: Police in Westminister, Maryland destroyed a French-made surface to air rocket launcher armed with a live missile and explosives. A telephone call tipped police; they found the shoulder-fired device along a rural roadside. [ap] A search of the national newspaper index revealed the following citations (not all are listed): Author: Barr-Stephen. Title: GAO: Army's missile count off target. (General Accounting Office report on Defense Department inventory records of hand- held missiles). Source: Washington-Post. Oct 26, 1994. v117. pA21. col 4. (Wed). Author: Moore-Molly. Title: CIA falters in recovery of missiles. (Central Intelligence Agency program to buy back Stinger missiles from Afghan rebels plagued with problems). Source: Washington-Post. March 7, 1994. v117. pA1. col 6. (Mon). Author: Wright-Robin. Broder-John-M. Title: U.S. bidding to regain missiles sent to Afghans. (Central Intelligence Agency requests $55 million to buy back Stingers given to rebels in the 1980s). Source: Los-Angeles-Times. July 23, 1993. v112. pA1. col 6. (Fri). Author: Weiner-Tim. Title: U.S. increases fund to outbid terrorists for Afghan missiles. (Stinger missiles given to guerrillas in the 1980's). Source: New-York-Times. July 24, 1993. v142. p1(N) p1(L). col 6. (Sat). Author: Rogers-David. Title: U.S. to buy back some of missiles held by Afghans. (United States to buy back Stinger missiles from Afghan guerrilla forces). Source: Wall-Street-Journal. Jan 15, 1993. pA7(W) pA7(E). col 6. (Fri). Author: Mann-Jim. Title: Pakistan sent Stingers to China, U.S. aides say. (antiaircraft missiles). Source: Los-Angeles-Times. May 8, 1992. v111. pA41. col 2. (Fri). Title: On Stinger trail: where are they now (number of Stinger missiles the United States gave to Afghanistan still remains a secret) (Editorial). Source: Los-Angeles-Times. April 28, 1992. v111. pB6. col 3. (Tue). Author: Andrews-Edmund-L. Title: U.S. worries over missiles it gave Afghan rebels. (U.S. concerned that Stinger antiaircraft missiles could get into the wrong hands) (International Pages). Source: New-York-Times. April 27, 1992. v141. pA4(N) pA6(L). col 2. (Mon). Author: Evans-Kathleen. Title: As Afghan war funding dries up, weapons flood Pakistani market. Source: Christian-Science-Monitor. Jan 8, 1992. v84(n30). p1. col 2. (Wed). Author: Ostrow-Ronald-J. Title: 2 Colombians arrested in plot to buy missiles. (Stinger antiaircraft missile smuggling case). Source: Los-Angeles-Times. May 8, 1990. v109. pA1. col 3. (Tue). Author: Isikoff-Michael. Title: 2 Colombians held in missile scheme: drug traffickers allegedly tried to buy 120 Stingers in Florida. Source: Washington-Post. May 8, 1990. v113. pA1. col 4. (Tue). Author: Gerth-Jeff. Title: F.B.I. said to foil missile smuggling to Colombia. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, plan to smuggle Stinger antiaircraft missiles) (International Pages). Source: New-York-Times. May 7, 1990. v139. pA5(N) pA5(L). col 1. (Mon). Title: Four are accused of trying to buy antiaircraft missile for the I.R.A. (Irish Republican Army). Source: New-York-Times. Jan 13, 1990. v139. p8(N) p10(L). col 5. (Sat). Title: Afghan rebel bars return of U.S. Stingers. (Islamic Party of Yunis Khalis) (International Pages). Source: New-York-Times. March 14, 1989. v138. pA3(N) pA3(L). col 3. (Tue). ======================== SIGN UP FOR FREE RELEASES. This is a low-volume list; you will receive 8-12 releases monthly and no mail from other subscribers. Email ccnrs@eskimo.com with SUBSCRIBE CC as the subject. BRAND NEW! Visit our all-text Website for back issues and frequent updates. It's free, fast, and accessible with any browser -- plus you are free to download or repost our material onto other services. http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html GET THE FULL STORY: Each month our Journal covers over 100 news events -- with analysis and commentary -- that have been spiked, suppressed, or ignored by the government-sourced mainline media! Email ccnrs@eskimo.com with GET CATALOG as the subject. We cover: *** The US Constitution * US & World Security * Political Corruption Individual Liberty * World Financial Markets * Religious Freedom *** __________________________________________________________________ Conservative Consensus * ccnrs@eskimo.com * jinks@u.washington.edu http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html __________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of roc Digest V2 #31 ************************ To subscribe to roc Digest, send the command: subscribe roc-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@xmission.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-roc": subscribe roc-digest local-roc@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "roc-digest" in the commands above with "roc". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.xmission.com, in pub/lists/roc/archive. These are organized by date.