From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@tpk.net)
Date: Wed Nov 13 1996 - 20:29:11 MST
James Rogers wrote:
>
> >
> >Yes there are members who have not been properly "taken care of". Many
> >women still do not feel like they are treated as part of the military,
> >or only view it as a way to get free education, or try to use the system
> >for personal aggrandizement. I've witnessed flase harassment cases
> >personally. Not against myself, but against others. I was the key
> >witness in a case in which two female airmen framed a male airman with
> >such claims. If I had not overheard them talking about it beforehand,
> >his life would be over.
>
> I saw this twice in my relatively short military career. I too was witness
> in one incident that the charges were intentionally fabricated. The problem
> with women in the military is that too many of them *don't want* to be
> treated on an equal basis with the men. They want a civilian life plus a
> uniform. The much lower standards for women in the military only aggravates
> and encourages this.
>
> >I am not saying the truth may not come out. If some agency with
> >equivalent power shows an interest in invesigating this in earnest, I
> >can guarrantee that any witnesses will come out of the woodwork. Until
> >such a time, the operating rule among lower ranking people is: COVER
> >YOUR ASS, SQUEAKY WHEELS GET TOSSED OVERBOARD, and WHISTLE BLOWERS GET
> >IT JAMMED DOWN THEIR THROATS. I've been there, done that, I know what I
> >am talking about. Anyone with a tale to tell needs a lot of cover
> >overhead to make it home.
>
> This is very true. The military takes care of its own, and generally runs
> on its own set of rules. Political or judicial action rarely has any impact
> on the fundamental SOPs and culture of military life. You're either in all
> the way or you won't last.
>
> >>
> >> >> just don't think they could pull it off if they tried. Gov't employees
> >> >> aren't that competent.
> >> >
> >> >US military personnel are not your regular government employees.
> >>
> >> That's true, but we are talking about the military *plus* other government
> >> agencies. I am hardly convinced that Bill Clinton loves, respects, and
> >> would protect the U.S. military.
> >
> >But he loves himself and his own power far more than the Constitution.
> >
> >>
> >> >The facts are that mechanical failure of the sort necessary to have the
> >> >failure that occured in that plane by itself has been determined to be
> >> >fantastically unlikely. It is also a fact that they have only found bomb
> >> >traces on sections of the plane where ordinances had been stored for
> >> >shipment during Operation Desert Storm. THe traces they found were no
> >> >where near that beleived needed to induce the blast the plane
> >> >experienced. What is left?
>
> A missile would leave significant residue traces if it impacted on the
> plane. If the missile was proximity fused, it would leave a very
> identifiable signature on parts of the plane due to the nature of proximity
> detonations. Since it has not been mentioned anywhere, I will assume that a
> proximity detonating missile did not bring down the plane.
>
> The Navy's Standard missile (presumably the one used this scenario) most
> likely uses a large composite warhead of RDX and TNT, both of which leave
> significant chemical traces, especially TNT. However, no significant traces
> have been found of any explosive.
>
> Essentially all military explosives are detectable both by explosive
> detection hardware (like TNC) and residue traces. Therefore, assuming that
> the facts available are correct and true, then military explosives are not
> involved. This would significantly lessen the possibility that the military
> was directly involved.
>
> HYPOTHESIS: There are much lesser known classes of explosives which 1) are
> not detectable via normal explosive detection hardware, and 2) do not leave
> chemical traces normally associated with explosives. This would force the
> general requirement that the explosive was loaded on to the plane, not
> delivered by missile. This would also generally show significant intent,
> since these explosives would require custom manufacture by a knowledgeable
> explosive chemist. In turn, this would imply a bit more intelligence and
> resourcefulness than your average terrorist. If you suspect the government,
> Sandia NL could easily produce the required compounds.
>
Actually, there is an anti air missile with very little explosive. The
Sea Sparrow uses a warhead with a proximity fuse which is little more
than a very tightly coiled spiral spring (like in clocks). This sort of
device would explode outside the plane, far enough to eliminate any
possibility of residue showing up on the plane peices, and would simply
slice into the body of the aircraft.
In this scenario, since the Sea Sparrow is a radar guided missile, it
would hit a plane amidships, where the return radar signal is greatest
(right where the explosion happened), already "sprung", and would slice
into the fuel tank so violently that an explosion would result from
ignited fumes.
There you go, a missile attack with no bomb residue.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:50 MST