Started By
Message

The TWA 800 Whistleblower Is Legit

Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:29 pm
Posted by djmed
Member since Aug 2020
2608 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:29 pm
WOW


The TWA 800 Whistleblower Is Legit
By Jack Cashill

In the past few weeks, I have received numerous inquiries about ten-year Navy veteran William Henry Teele III. After years of quietly providing information to me and other investigators into the July 1996 destruction of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island, Teele has gone public and is naming names.

I shared some of Teele’s information in my 2016 book, TWA 800: The Crash, The Cover-Up, The Conspiracy. Teele did not claim to be on the ship that fired the missile. He was on the USS Carr, a guided missile frigate that was one of the “combatants” in the battle group that destroyed the unfortunate 747 and killed the 230 souls on board. Everything that I could verify about Teele’s account back then checked out.

Teele describes the assumed enemy as a “low, slow flier flying toward us.” The tragedy that followed would likely have been averted had not air traffic control held the Paris-bound TWA 800 at 13,700 feet to allow US Air 217 heading north to pass safely overhead. “I believe we jumped the gun,” said Teele. “We had a track on a contact that came out that fit the profile that we were given.” TWA 800 became the “assumed enemy.” Says Teele, “It matched the drill.”



Two missiles were fired. Over his headset, Teele heard the announcement, “Birds away.” A few minutes later, he heard “Splash,” meaning the missiles had hit the target. Soon after that, he heard someone say, “Wo, wo, wo.” And another person added, “Wait a minute. We hit an Airbus.”

LINK
Posted by Rex Feral
Athens
Member since Jan 2014
11310 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:31 pm to
Why the huge coverup if it was an accident?
Posted by Godfather1
What WAS St George, Louisiana
Member since Oct 2006
79655 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:34 pm to
quote:

Why the huge coverup if it was an accident?


It wasn’t an accident. It was negligence caused by poor training. And it was on Bill Clinton’s watch. Of course they covered it up.
Posted by GRTiger
On a roof eating alligator pie
Member since Dec 2008
62936 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:49 pm to
quote:

Why the huge coverup if it was an accident?


Tradition or force of habit
Posted by SloaneRanger
Upper Hurstville
Member since Jan 2014
7689 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:50 pm to
I’ve never believed we got an adequate explanation on this one, but this seems too far fetched. Isn’t this the one that was flying east over the Long Island Sound? Why would a Navy ship fire on an aircraft that was clearly coming from the continental US? Doesn’t make sense.
Posted by Godfather1
What WAS St George, Louisiana
Member since Oct 2006
79655 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:01 pm to
quote:

Why would a Navy ship fire on an aircraft that was clearly coming from the continental US? Doesn’t make sense.


Read the article.
Posted by boxcarbarney
Above all things, be a man
Member since Jul 2007
22729 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:02 pm to
quote:

The stuff that happened on the night of July 17, 1996 outraged Teele’s CO, Captain Wray. “These have got to be the dumbest idiots I’ve ever seen in my life,” Teele remembers Wray as saying. “How do you accidentally fire a missile? You don’t know the color of missiles? One is blue. One is white. Blue mean training. White means live. You’ve got to be stupid to put a white on the rail.” Although his memory as to which ship was responsible is admittedly uncertain, Teele believes it was the Leyte Gulf


So were they supposed to be using "blue" training missiles, but instead used "white" live fire missiles? If they had used the training missiles, could the accident have been avoided? Or would a blunt object still frick up a commercial airliner?
Posted by teke184
Zachary, LA
Member since Jan 2007
95311 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:08 pm to
A blunt probably still would have fricked up an airliner on a transatlantic flight.

The famous landing on the river in NYC happened due to a bird getting sucked into the engine. Chunks of shrapnel caused by a training missile hitting a plan likely would have gone through the engine too depending on placement.
Posted by FtheNWO
Member since Nov 2021
223 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:18 pm to
The failure model as described by the 'investigation' has never been repeated in millions of flights. They even went through the charade of proposing a nitrogen purge system.
As usual, they just lie, lie, lie and get away with it.
Posted by Cosmo
glassman's guest house
Member since Oct 2003
120257 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:18 pm to
If this was legit more than 1 person would have leaked it

Multiple ships, probably thousands of sailors

You can keep that many people quiet? Nope
Posted by SeaBass23
VA
Member since Jul 2019
1585 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:19 pm to
quote:

I’ve never believed we got an adequate explanation on this one, but this seems too far fetched. Isn’t this the one that was flying east over the Long Island Sound? Why would a Navy ship fire on an aircraft that was clearly coming from the continental US? Doesn’t make sense.


There are way too many big mouths in the Navy for this to be a cover up. One night at the Chief’s club and this would have been all over the fleet.
Posted by SloaneRanger
Upper Hurstville
Member since Jan 2014
7689 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:21 pm to
I did look at the article. I’m not familiar with how the Navy conducts its training operations, but this was and is congested airspace with many, many civilian aircraft flying to Europe. I find it impossible to believe that the Navy would conduct its fire training exercises in this particular location. Maybe I’m just wrong.
Posted by Irons Puppet
Birmingham
Member since Jun 2009
25901 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:21 pm to
quote:

It wasn’t an accident. It was negligence caused by poor training. And it was on Bill Clinton’s watch. Of course they covered it up.




It was caused by empty fuel cells on a 747. The problem still hasn't been fixed, but it wasn't terrorism.
Posted by PJinAtl
Atlanta
Member since Nov 2007
12747 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:24 pm to
quote:

A blunt probably still would have fricked up an airliner on a transatlantic flight.

The famous landing on the river in NYC happened due to a bird getting sucked into the engine. Chunks of shrapnel caused by a training missile hitting a plan likely would have gone through the engine too depending on placement.

Do training missiles actually explode?

I know live missiles have something like a proximity fuse and will go off as long as they are within a certain distance of the target, and the pressure wave/shrapnel does the damage, much like a torpedo detonating under a ship breaks the keel.

Would a training missile have to make a direct hit to do damage, but otherwise just sailed past it?
Posted by Tesla
the Laurentian Abyss
Member since Dec 2011
7958 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:27 pm to
quote:

It was caused by empty fuel cells on a 747. The problem still hasn't been fixed, but it wasn't terrorism.


bullshite, as is evidenced by the millions of hours of flight time on that exact airframe. Also, nobody takes off from JFK to Paris with empty fuel tanks. Complete bullshite.
Posted by billjamin
Houston
Member since Jun 2019
12483 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:29 pm to
If the Navy had any involvement in this there would have been no less than 6 books written by people claiming to be the one who accidentally hit the launch button.
Posted by Irons Puppet
Birmingham
Member since Jun 2009
25901 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:34 pm to
quote:

bullshite, as is evidenced by the millions of hours of flight time on that exact airframe. Also, nobody takes off from JFK to Paris with empty fuel tanks. Complete bullshite.



Empty center tanks that were not needed for this flight. Very common. I have seen the crash remains at the NTSB lab. They rebuilt the main fuselage of the aircraft, with its seats. You can see the explosion location of the fuel tanks and there are not any penetration points in the aircraft body. The reason they chase the rabbit down the terrorist hole for 6 months was because of the FBI and the fact the aircraft broke in half after the explosion.
Posted by Tesla
the Laurentian Abyss
Member since Dec 2011
7958 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:43 pm to
So, you’re claiming to be one of a handful of NTSB agents, DoD, Boeing, TWA or FBI agents with access to the wreckage after it was reassembled fully?

Riiiiight.
Posted by N.O. via West-Cal
New Orleans
Member since Aug 2004
7178 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:48 pm to
"It wasn’t an accident. It was negligence caused by poor training."

What you just described is an accident.
Posted by Irons Puppet
Birmingham
Member since Jun 2009
25901 posts
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:49 pm to
quote:

So, you’re claiming to be one of a handful of NTSB agents, DoD, Boeing, TWA or FBI agents with access to the wreckage after it was reassembled fully?

Riiiiight.


No dumbass. The wreckage used to be part of their lab in Virginia that is used in the training for accident investigation. I have attended training there (DOD). It isn't open to the public and I think they have plans for its removal in the near future. It is a very sobering exhibit.


Riiight, dumbass.

This post was edited on 8/12/22 at 3:52 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram