1996-09-09 - TWA 800 - hit by an unarmed US missile?

Header Data

From: Vincent Cate <vince@offshore.com.ai>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 5a804fe3e4141afba5297b54113016d1d42a4a704c1c501a0a96177edc5598ba
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960909074055.27745B@offshore>
Reply To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960909070348.27706A-100000@offshore>
UTC Datetime: 1996-09-09 14:26:00 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 22:26:00 +0800

Raw message

From: Vincent Cate <vince@offshore.com.ai>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 22:26:00 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: TWA 800 - hit by an unarmed US missile?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960909070348.27706A-100000@offshore>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960909074055.27745B@offshore>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



A collision with an unarmed missile would explain why they are not finding
much evidence of high explosives (the pitting, ruptured metal, and residue). 

If a missile going at supersonic speed hit a 747 in the underbelly, near a
fuel tank, I sure believe that it could take out the 747.  If it was
coming toward the 747, not catching up to it from behind, the collision
speed would be the addition of the two speeds.  In this case a soft
civilian airplane would not stand a chance.  Civilian airplanes are
designed to survive collisions with birds, but not supersonic missiles. 

If the Navy was firing missiles in this area, it really does seem like the
press should be checking out this angle. 

    --  Vince






Thread