Re: TWA flight 800 and the missile theory

From:         mdonalds@calumet.yorku.ca (Corsair)
Organization: Calumet College, York University
Date:         29 Jul 96 02:29:33 
References:   1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1996.1380@ohare.Chicago.COM> kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes:

>I still have one problem with the missile theory.  Korean Airliners
>007 was shot down by two missiles launched from a Soviet Sukhoi-15
>fighter, 6-12 km (the reports I have are unclear) behind it.  I assume
>that a fighter could carry missiles with significantly more punch than
>any sort of hand-held missile.  Yet there was no fireball, no in-
>flight breakup of KE 007.  One missile hit near the tail while the
>second ripped off a substantial portion of the left wing.  Far from an
>explosion and fireball, followed by breakup of the airframe, the plane
>had electric power for another minute and 44 seconds, allowing the CVR
>to record a hopeless struggle as the pilots tried to regain control of
>the crippled 747.  The evidence indicates the airframe was intact for
>the entire twelve minutes from missile hit to impact with the water.

Bear in mind that the KAL 007 wasn't carrying as much fuel as it was nearing
the end of it's flight. The 747 that crashed was fully-fueled having just
taken off. In addition, both A/A missiles didn't really strike areas that
would have been filled with fuel. IF a SAM downed TWA 800, it may have gone
for the engines as the hottest part, which are directly below the fuel tanks.

--
Corsair
Web CAG of The Unofficial "Jolly Rogers" Site
http://www-home.calumet.yorku.ca/mdonalds/www/home.htm