Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
John McCain stops medical treatment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Blk04L" data-source="post: 15991364" data-attributes="member: 48574"><p><a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/john-mccain-fire-uss-forrestal/" target="_blank">https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/john-mccain-fire-uss-forrestal/</a></p><p><a href="https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/07/blog-posting/posts-blame-john-mccain-deadly-1967-fire-aboard-us/" target="_blank">Posts blame McCain for deadly 1967 fire aboard USS Forrestal</a></p><p><a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/mccains-plane-crashes/" target="_blank">McCain's Plane Crashes - FactCheck.org</a></p><p></p><p>A special note is in order here. We have seen some baseless claims that McCain was somehow responsible for the Forrestal disaster. One incorrect but widely quoted theory has him triggering the Zuni missile with the exhaust of his own plane by "wet-starting" – deliberately dumping fuel into the afterburner before starting in order to shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft. This is a preposterous notion. For one thing, A-4 jets flew at subsonic speeds and were not equipped with afterburners. According to the Military Analysis Network site maintained by the Federation of American Scientists, the A-4 was powered by a "Single, Pratt & Whitney, J-52-P-408A <a href="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-4.htm" target="_blank">non-afterburning, turbojet engine</a>." The manufacturer's description of the aircraft also describes the powerplant as "One 11,187-pound-thrust P&W J52-P408 engine," with <a href="http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/skyhawk.htm" target="_blank">no mention of an afterburner</a>.</p><p></p><p>And while pilots tell us that a “wet start” is possible even without an afterburner, the theory fails for another reason. The tail of McCain's plane was pointed over the side of the carrier and away from other planes at the time, and the F4 Phantom fighter that fired the missile was facing McCain's plane from the opposite side of the deck, as shown in Caiella’s diagram, in other diagrams, and in Navy film of the fire.</p><p></p><p>This bogus theory appears to have gotten its start from <a href="http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0913FD355E137A93C3AA178CD85F438685F9" target="_blank">a report by New York Times reporter R. W. Apple. Jr,</a> who reported on July 31, 1967 – two days after the fire – that the Forrestal’s captain, John K. Beling, believed an “extreme wet start” had created “a thick tongue of flame” that set off the Zuni. Beling did not identify McCain’s plane as the source, however, and said only that the aircraft was “parked near the carrier’s island,” which would have put it far forward and on the opposite side of the flight deck from where McCain’s plane was getting ready to launch. Not usually noted by the conspiracy theorists is that Capt. Beling “repeatedly said that he had been unable fully to sort out the conflicting reports” that circulated on the 5,000-man vessel in the hours after the fire, according to Apple, who also called the wet-start theory “tentative.” In any case, Beling’s early theory was soon dismissed by Navy investigators, who found that the Zuni had been touched off by a stray electrical charge, not by a jet exhaust. Author Freeman summarizes the findings succinctly in in "Sailors to the End:"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Blk04L, post: 15991364, member: 48574"] [URL]https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/john-mccain-fire-uss-forrestal/[/URL] [URL="https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/07/blog-posting/posts-blame-john-mccain-deadly-1967-fire-aboard-us/"]Posts blame McCain for deadly 1967 fire aboard USS Forrestal[/URL] [URL="https://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/mccains-plane-crashes/"]McCain's Plane Crashes - FactCheck.org[/URL] A special note is in order here. We have seen some baseless claims that McCain was somehow responsible for the Forrestal disaster. One incorrect but widely quoted theory has him triggering the Zuni missile with the exhaust of his own plane by "wet-starting" – deliberately dumping fuel into the afterburner before starting in order to shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft. This is a preposterous notion. For one thing, A-4 jets flew at subsonic speeds and were not equipped with afterburners. According to the Military Analysis Network site maintained by the Federation of American Scientists, the A-4 was powered by a "Single, Pratt & Whitney, J-52-P-408A [URL='http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-4.htm']non-afterburning, turbojet engine[/URL]." The manufacturer's description of the aircraft also describes the powerplant as "One 11,187-pound-thrust P&W J52-P408 engine," with [URL='http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/skyhawk.htm']no mention of an afterburner[/URL]. And while pilots tell us that a “wet start” is possible even without an afterburner, the theory fails for another reason. The tail of McCain's plane was pointed over the side of the carrier and away from other planes at the time, and the F4 Phantom fighter that fired the missile was facing McCain's plane from the opposite side of the deck, as shown in Caiella’s diagram, in other diagrams, and in Navy film of the fire. This bogus theory appears to have gotten its start from [URL='http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0913FD355E137A93C3AA178CD85F438685F9']a report by New York Times reporter R. W. Apple. Jr,[/URL] who reported on July 31, 1967 – two days after the fire – that the Forrestal’s captain, John K. Beling, believed an “extreme wet start” had created “a thick tongue of flame” that set off the Zuni. Beling did not identify McCain’s plane as the source, however, and said only that the aircraft was “parked near the carrier’s island,” which would have put it far forward and on the opposite side of the flight deck from where McCain’s plane was getting ready to launch. Not usually noted by the conspiracy theorists is that Capt. Beling “repeatedly said that he had been unable fully to sort out the conflicting reports” that circulated on the 5,000-man vessel in the hours after the fire, according to Apple, who also called the wet-start theory “tentative.” In any case, Beling’s early theory was soon dismissed by Navy investigators, who found that the Zuni had been touched off by a stray electrical charge, not by a jet exhaust. Author Freeman summarizes the findings succinctly in in "Sailors to the End:" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
John McCain stops medical treatment
Top