It is possible Iraq was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing, the first World Trade Center bombing, the Anthrax attacks and 9/11 itself. Although it is not in the list of events the media hounds are baying after, I would also toss in TWA Flight 800. I simply never bought the NTSB story on that one.
I don’t like conspiracy theories. That doesn’t mean conspiracies never happen. They do – and I am beginning to think this is one of them. Unlike most of the tales of twisted logic to be found in dusty corners of net.news groups, this one doesn’t set off my bullshit detectors. It’s perfectly plausible. Motives for all parties are believable and most importantly, the total incompetence of the authorities gives it a level of believability often missing from such tall tales. Most conspiracies theories would have us believe US government agencies are capable of keeping a secret, are highly competent and in some cases capable of intentionally doing weirdly evil things. All three are contrary to the embarrassing reality. None of the agencies are outright bad guys. They are just a bunch of buffoons led by idiots. In other words: totally normal government bureaucrats.
Saddam had a motive and would not blink an eye at mass murder. He’s quite experienced at it. He’s already used poison gas in battle against Iran and there is evidence he used bios against the Kurds back in the ’80’s. Bush Sr and Bill Clinton both had reasons for avoiding the war which would have ensued if investigations had proceeded to their conclusion.
A lot of very knowledgeable and quite “serious” people are questioning the official line now, and they have good information to back them up. It’s not even a hidden trail, just a baldly denied one. I’m not going to rewrite what can be read elsewhere. First look at this article from the Opinion Journal. Investigative reporters are digging out facts and getting affidavits which put Iraq up to their necks in Oklahoma City and the first WTC bombing. If Iraq really is running a hijacker training school with an old airframe one starts wondering about 9/11 as well.
We have known from the very beginning Atta met with Iraqi undercover agents in Prague. There have also been reports that Atta and friends stayed at a Kansas motel where Iraqi’s are purported to have been before the Oklahoma City bomb.
The Wall Street Journal and various reporters are not the only ones digging into this mess. Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana has a committee looking into who worked with McVeigh.
Earlier I mentioned TWA 800. The official explanation of this disaster was a spark in a fuel tank caused an explosion. I find this very hard to buy. The aircraft in question was just off the US coast on a trans-Atlantic flight. That means it had a full fuel load. A bigger explosion you might think? Not at all. Fuel vapor can only blow if there is a critical mixture of fuel and air. With the tanks near full, there would not have been much room for said vapor. My bullshit detectors went off like an Armageddon Day air raid siren on this one.
I’m willing to listen if someone can show me the numbers that prove a full fuel tank could explode. Until then, I reject the NTSB report.
Some intelligence types believe it was a missile. In particular there was a very good article in the November issue of Air Forces Monthly by Ronald Lewis, a former USAF and Army intelligence analyst (“War in the Shadows”, p34-p38) that is quite an interesting read. He does not finger Iraq, but does make an interesting case that we have been at war for nearly 10 years and the government has been keeping the lid on it, perhaps to avoid popular pressure for taking out Saddam Hussein.
We wouldn’t want to upset the Saudi’s.
A reader has noted a 747 would not require a full fuel load for this run. I still have not seen information on whether the Wing Center Tank was partially full and thus potentially explosive or if there is no way to vent and purge empty tanks on a 747.
Saddam is also responsible for Waco and Ruby Ridge…
A small focus charge in a piece of carry-on luggage, placed beneath the seat of the bomber/passenger sitting over top of the empty fuselage tank, projecting all of it’s explosive force straight down into said tank could produce TWA800. The fuselage tank WAS empty for the flight. All of the required fuel for the flight was in the wing tanks.
The spark that reportedly caused the explosion that destroyed TWA 800 did not take place in a full fuel tank, but an empty one. A trans-Atlantic flight from New York to Paris does not require that all of a 747’s tanks be full. With the number of passengers on board, their luggage, any other cargo in the hold, and taking in to account the distance of the flght, the main fuselage tanks were not needed to carry the fuel necessary for the flight (including the mandatory reserve fuel).
The airlines don’t want to carry any more weight on their aircraft than absolutely necessary. Carrying an unnecessary amount of fuel costs money as the aircraft will use extra fuel moving the excess from point A to point B.
Now repeat after me, “Extra weight uses extra fuel.”
If all of the tanks had been full, TWA 800 could have flown from New York to Paris, then returned to New York, and then flown most of the way back to Paris again without refueling.
We have a friend who works for one of the big ones and is on the NTSB clean-up crew. He also thought it was the fuel tank.
According to the NTSB report, it was the Centre Wing Tank that blew due to a critical fuel-air mixture. “The source of the ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty” but was external to the tank. NTSB summary”
I would be surprised if there was no venting or purging mechanism for empty tanks, particularly for large aircraft which could sit in the sun on the ground for hours. Spacecraft often use a Nitrogen purge, but I don’t know that the competitive commercial aviation world would have the extra hardware and consumables for something like that.
For a tank to be explosive, I would expect it to be at least partially full. Are you suggesting fuel was shifted into the CWT for W&B?
The center fuel tank was empty of fuel, but vapors would remain. No commercial aircraft have nitrogen purge to prevent explosion of fume-filled tanks. They say it would cost too much to install as well as the weight of the equipment would cut into profits (weight of equipment against weight of passengers and fuel). Military planes have had systems to pruge tanks of flamable vapor for some time, but they don’t have to make money. The NTSB has been trying to get nitrogen purge systems added for some time. The FAA last week ordered inspections of wiring into fuel tanks on most commercial aircraft due to a fault being found. Most likely there was a short circuit to one of the center tank fuel pumps causing a spark. This would have caused a massive explosion of the vapor filled tank, blowing the plane in half.
As a Caltech alumnus I received an alumni journal with the investigation of the center fuel tank and its explosion.
First, all the fuel at takeoff was in the wing tanks. According to the article, those tanks were designed to hold enough fuel for a safe New York-Paris run.
Second, the fuel (at that time) center tank was not completely drained. No provisions were made for an inert gas blanket in ANY fuel tank. At that time, the art stated that only military aircraft needed a blanket system. I don’t know what the up to date poop on this thinking is now.
Third, a major contributing factor was the time spent on the ramp, allowing the fuel tank to heat up, generating enough vapors to make an explosive mixture. Too little fuel vapors, too much fuel vapors: no explosion. There is an “fuel vapor.air island” where conditions are just right for a spark initiated explosion. Bad Luck on that one.
In a test of an actual fuel tank with fuel and experimental conditions as close to the actual flight as was possible to reproduce, there was one hell of an explosion, spark initiated. Spectacular pictures of her blowing, BTW.
Spark source was traced to chaffed electrical lines running unshielded through the center main tank. Subsequent quick inspections confirmed this was an actual problem on sister aircraft. Since then, electric cables run in conduits.
Full details are in Caltech’s Engineering and Science magazine. A call to Pasadena and The Office of E & S should yield a xerox copy, albeit after a minor search.
Hope this helps.
Iraq’s secret service agents also robbed my lunch at school.
oh, heavens forfend we should irritate the source of some of our oil…