"In June 1967, Forrestal departed Norfolk for duty in waters off Vietnam. In the Gulf of Tonkin on 29 July, Forrestal had been launching aircraft from her flight deck. For four days, the planes of Attack Carrier Air Wing 17 flew about 150 missions against targets in North Vietnam from the ship. On 29 July 1967, during preparation for another strike, a Zuni rocket installed on an F-4 Phantom (#110), misfired, impacting an armed A-4 Skyhawk's side #405, parked on the port side.[10] The rocket's impact dislodged and ruptured the Skyhawk's 400-gallon external fuel tank. Fuel from the leaking tank caught fire, creating a serious conflagration that burned for hours, killing 134, injuring 161, destroying 21 aircraft and costing the Navy US$72 million. On the flight deck that day was Lieutenant Commander (later Senator) John McCain."
Ha! Tell me No-Name was responsible for the fire without telling me he was responsible for the fire.
"Political cartoonist Ben Garrison published a post that alleges that the late Sen. John McCain started a fire aboard the USS Forrestal in 1967 that killed 134 people. It said that McCain “wet-started” his plane, over-fueling the jet engine in order to create a dramatic plume of fire on ignition, and that the flame set off a bomb, which started the fire."
“McCain actually did an illegal ‘wet start’ which caused flames to shoot out the back of his jet and start a fire that caused the A/C behind him to catch fire and the resulting conflagration started bombs blowing up,” one user tweeted Tuesday.
“Dont forget McCain thought it would be Cool to Wet Start his plane on deck with bombs loaded which in turn killed several of his fellow soldiers,” another user tweeted Sunday."
The fact-checkers say the story is false, so you know darn well it's true.
'Wet-starting' a jet engine aircraft was an old 'hot dog' prank used in fly-boy country. My understanding is that with the newer aircraft this is no longer possible. In the 1980s Tom Cruz movie -- "Top Gun" when the character, "Maverick" 'buzzed' the Control Tower, it was actually a spoof of this. No pilot would ever dare buzz a control tower because this would certainly be grounds to dismiss any pilot from the military. Incidentally, it's very ironic that John McCain was commonly described as a '"maverick" during his actual political career. Premeditated 'wet-starting' an engine on an open airfield wasn't nearly as determinable. Sometimes it occurred due to poor judgment and inexperience. There was always some 'plausible deniablity'. However, an aircraft carrier is not an open airfield. The rules are much stricter due to the higher density of aircraft and traffic. Therefore, it was strictly managed. The air wing on-board are highly trained to manage the movement of aircraft at all times, especially in 'air-ops'.
I once witnessed an aircraft-traffic controller direct a pilot to maneuver his aircraft one way, but the pilot turned the opposite way. The result was that the air-traffic controller was put in the path of the jet engine exhaust and I watched this individual get blown like a leaf in the path of a leaf blower into the "island" (super structure) of the ship. He was very lucky of the direction he was blown and that it wasn't to sea side of the flight deck. He could have been easily blown overboard. I ran down from the O9 level to the O3 flight deck level only to see this guy being helped in inside the door by others. The whole time this shaken individual was swearing and cursing about the pilot that screwed up. I'm sure the pilot was reprimanded for this.
Wet-starting an engine on an aircraft carrier is beyond stupid. It turns out McCain did a lot of very stupid things in the military. I believe he has the record for destroying and costing the military for crashed aircraft.
"In June 1967, Forrestal departed Norfolk for duty in waters off Vietnam. In the Gulf of Tonkin on 29 July, Forrestal had been launching aircraft from her flight deck. For four days, the planes of Attack Carrier Air Wing 17 flew about 150 missions against targets in North Vietnam from the ship. On 29 July 1967, during preparation for another strike, a Zuni rocket installed on an F-4 Phantom (#110), misfired, impacting an armed A-4 Skyhawk's side #405, parked on the port side.[10] The rocket's impact dislodged and ruptured the Skyhawk's 400-gallon external fuel tank. Fuel from the leaking tank caught fire, creating a serious conflagration that burned for hours, killing 134, injuring 161, destroying 21 aircraft and costing the Navy US$72 million. On the flight deck that day was Lieutenant Commander (later Senator) John McCain."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal
Ha! Tell me No-Name was responsible for the fire without telling me he was responsible for the fire.
"Political cartoonist Ben Garrison published a post that alleges that the late Sen. John McCain started a fire aboard the USS Forrestal in 1967 that killed 134 people. It said that McCain “wet-started” his plane, over-fueling the jet engine in order to create a dramatic plume of fire on ignition, and that the flame set off a bomb, which started the fire."
“McCain actually did an illegal ‘wet start’ which caused flames to shoot out the back of his jet and start a fire that caused the A/C behind him to catch fire and the resulting conflagration started bombs blowing up,” one user tweeted Tuesday.
“Dont forget McCain thought it would be Cool to Wet Start his plane on deck with bombs loaded which in turn killed several of his fellow soldiers,” another user tweeted Sunday."
The fact-checkers say the story is false, so you know darn well it's true.
https://checkyourfact.com/2018/08/30/fact-check-mccain-uss-forrestal-fire/
I guess this clears up why Q called him "No Name". It's a mocking of McCain for this cover up.
u/#q732
You can just hear how much disdain Q had for No Name. I doubt the Forrestal was the worst of McCain's crimes.
You know it's bad when he mentioned McCain more than bushes or Obama
I'm sure Q+ took a part in writing that drop.
It wasn't.
'Wet-starting' a jet engine aircraft was an old 'hot dog' prank used in fly-boy country. My understanding is that with the newer aircraft this is no longer possible. In the 1980s Tom Cruz movie -- "Top Gun" when the character, "Maverick" 'buzzed' the Control Tower, it was actually a spoof of this. No pilot would ever dare buzz a control tower because this would certainly be grounds to dismiss any pilot from the military. Incidentally, it's very ironic that John McCain was commonly described as a '"maverick" during his actual political career. Premeditated 'wet-starting' an engine on an open airfield wasn't nearly as determinable. Sometimes it occurred due to poor judgment and inexperience. There was always some 'plausible deniablity'. However, an aircraft carrier is not an open airfield. The rules are much stricter due to the higher density of aircraft and traffic. Therefore, it was strictly managed. The air wing on-board are highly trained to manage the movement of aircraft at all times, especially in 'air-ops'.
I once witnessed an aircraft-traffic controller direct a pilot to maneuver his aircraft one way, but the pilot turned the opposite way. The result was that the air-traffic controller was put in the path of the jet engine exhaust and I watched this individual get blown like a leaf in the path of a leaf blower into the "island" (super structure) of the ship. He was very lucky of the direction he was blown and that it wasn't to sea side of the flight deck. He could have been easily blown overboard. I ran down from the O9 level to the O3 flight deck level only to see this guy being helped in inside the door by others. The whole time this shaken individual was swearing and cursing about the pilot that screwed up. I'm sure the pilot was reprimanded for this.
Wet-starting an engine on an aircraft carrier is beyond stupid. It turns out McCain did a lot of very stupid things in the military. I believe he has the record for destroying and costing the military for crashed aircraft.
A wet start wasnt what caused the mishap. It was a stray voltage check during a hot load that did it.
See my other comment here in this post.
You're telling us the 'official' story used as a cover-up. Too many witnesses say otherwise.
I don't see any other explanation by yourself in this thread. Please elaborate.
Just not soon enough.
Attack Carrier Air Wing [17]???