Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/1764046/

Topic: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: OB1504
Posted 2004-10-03 22:29:36 and read 7351 times.

Tonight at 10:00 EDT there'll be a documentary on the History Channel about the crash of TWA flight 800 eight years ago. It's titled "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800". The commercial that they're running about the special says "Make up your own mind, about TWA Flight 800, tonight at 10, on the History Channel". Will anyone be watching?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Philippe Noret

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Chan
Username: Espion007
Posted 2004-10-03 22:37:07 and read 7304 times.

im going to watch,but only because theres nothng on. as for the conspiracy part-blah.theres no conspiracy.simply an air incident that cannot be concluded.

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: DeltaGuy
Posted 2004-10-04 00:08:18 and read 7233 times.

I'll have it tuned in....probably no really new news, but still always interesting to take a look back on it. Amazing how long it's been since then.

DeltaGuy

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: Meister808
Posted 2004-10-04 00:55:20 and read 7195 times.

Yeah it really is. That is over 8 years ago. I still remember turning on the TV the morning that happened. I was 10. That is hard to believe.

-Meister

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: AirxLiban
Posted 2004-10-04 18:35:59 and read 6954 times.

Did anyone watch this? I most certainly did...so many thoughts have been going through my mind.

It seems like we'll never know what happened to TWA flight 800.

I would like to believe (for TWA's sake) that it wasn't the simple spark in the center fuel tank.
.
Some of the conspiracy theories are quite frankly scary.

As a tribute to all those who perished that day it might be a better idea to leave the matter at rest.

But I think that the events of July 17th, 1996 will always be a mystery.

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: Boeing7E7
Posted 2004-10-04 18:38:45 and read 6940 times.

Yes. It was shot down by the black helicopters, flown by the same team of pilots that flew the planes into the WTC.

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: Rjpieces
Posted 2004-10-04 19:00:16 and read 6891 times.

I taped it.........I will watch it later.

I believe very few conspiracy theories but I do believe something fishy happened with TWA800.

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: Neilalp
Posted 2004-10-04 19:20:06 and read 6863 times.

It was a good program and I still don't know which way to believe. The program was called conspiracy so they didn't tell you much other than conspiracy stuff. I'd like to see a rebuttal from the non-conspiracy side.

Is there any info on the one boat which has never been accounted for with the 1 day rental dock? That caught my attention. As far as the "people who say they saw it" I don't believe half of them, b/c people will say anything. Also how bout that guy taking a part of seat 14A or something and testing it. That's federal property and he just took it. Idiot.

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: Cedarjet
Posted 2004-10-04 20:08:32 and read 6817 times.

Oh dear. RJ: "I do believe something fishy happened with TWA800." Based on WHAT, exactly?! It's a fault that has caused Boeing jets to blow up at least FOUR TIMES before - an Iranian AF 747-100 in flight over Spain, a Pan Am Boeing 707 over Maryland (a lightening strike in this case), and two 737s on the ground, a Thai International aircraft at the gate in BKK and a Philippines aircraft on pushback at Manila (both caused by empty central tanks). On the TWA plane, a couple of fuel guages went beserk, strongly indicative of an electrical fault in the fuel system, a few seconds later, kaboom. No sign of explosives, no tell-all confession from an NTSB or military person, nothing. Do you think all the hundreds of engineers at the NTSB, who have devoted their entire lives and considerable intellects to flight safety, could be kept quiet if the plane had been hit by a missile or whatever crazy conspiracy you're buying into? Come on.

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: Dtw9
Posted 2004-10-04 20:21:40 and read 6794 times.

kind of ironic isn't it, if you add swissair 111 to twa 800 you get 911. And no i'm not saying conspiracy, just ironic

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: Imonti
Posted 2004-10-04 20:25:48 and read 6780 times.

on discovery channel they had some very good points, could have previously been history channel.

They actually explained the entire thing, what "really" happened and I can believe what they say.

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: Ltbewr
Posted 2004-10-04 20:54:01 and read 6744 times.

I have a problem with programs like this, especially as it does encourage the conspiracy believers. I saw some parts of this program, so understand the theme of it, and the questions still raised (was on same time as Discovery program on the X-Prize project). If TWA800 had crashed further out to sea (like the Air India terror bomb crash off Ireland), then the remains would not have been recoverable nor would there been any witnesses. If it had been a US military missle, how could you keep everybody quiet about it? As to terrorist launched missles, evidence is questionable.
PA103 was much easier to determine it's cause. It took place overland so almost all of the remains were recoverable and through a through investigation, and using known info as to what happens when a bomb is on an aircraft, along with finding evidence like the parts of the radio which contained the bomb was located. Swissair 101 occured near the coast like TWA 800, but better recording devices in the aircraft systems, as it was a much newer model, helped determine the probable cause for it's demise(electrical short leading to a fire) to a high degree of certainy.
The particular older age of the TWA 800 aircraft along with past circumstances of fuel tank explosions and with the pilots seeing unusual fuel pressure readings suggests the generally believed cause.
Yet, let us not forget that not long after TWA800, you had the plot uncovered to blow up aircraft from the Phillipines. Also, could a bomb been smuggled by someone into the aircraft, placed near the tank to make it look like a tank problem? These kind of possibilities encourage the conspiriacy positions. Still, it is sad we will never find to the degree of absolute certaintly for all what happened with TWA800.

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: AirxLiban
Posted 2004-10-04 22:15:15 and read 6666 times.

I obviously am a regular civilian and have not seen any wreckage or any evidence.

But all the missiles from the US Navy ship that was eyed by the conspiracy theorists have been accounted for, so that one is quite easy to dismiss.

The theory of the boat shooting a missile could work if they had found some evidence in the recovered fuselage, but they didn't and nor did they find a motor.

The islamic terrorists in a private plane with explosives sounds like pure MSU to me and I don't buy itb.

It is easiest to believe the spark story but unfortunately the story does not leave any lingering doubts.

The reason, at least according to the TV programme, is that although similar accidents have happened with other boeing jets such as the spanish one is that the explosion did not "look the same"- interpretation of that is going to depend on the degree to which the eyewitnesses think they know what they are talking about.

We could have the answer to this question if TWA 800 took off to the west, then turned north and headed over the canadian coast and across the atlantic...

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: OB1504
Posted 2004-10-04 22:29:43 and read 6649 times.

I saw the show, and thought some of the theories were so $hitty that they weren't even worthy of being called BS.

A light aircraft crashing into a Boeing 747? How exact would the calculations of the terrorists have to be in order to be able to hit a 'plane moving at more than 460 knots when they can only go at 120? And how do you get a 'plane like that up to 29,000 feet?

I originally believed the Navy missile theory (years ago) but upon doing some more research on it, I believe that the actual cause was the spark in the fuel tank.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9712/08/twa.hearings.wrap/closeup.23.lrg.mov

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: AirxLiban
Posted 2004-10-04 22:36:25 and read 6639 times.

A light aircraft crashing into a Boeing 747? How exact would the calculations of the terrorists have to be in order to be able to hit a 'plane moving at more than 460 knots when they can only go at 120? And how do you get a 'plane like that up to 29,000 feet?

I agree that this is extreme bull shizzle. First of all the wreckage of the private plane would have come up if it had hit, secondly the 747's other aircraft detecting system (whatever it is called) would have detected it, third it would be quite difficult for them to make the correct calculations (even though the TV programme claims it would be quite easy) and fourth that is just way too farfetched!

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Chan
Username: Spacecadet
Posted 2004-10-04 23:12:40 and read 6617 times.

I watched 5 minutes and had to turn it off, it was frankly so ridiculous.

The part I saw dealt with residue on the seats in a certain area of the passenger cabin, which these conspiracy theorists thought meant that a missile had travelled through the cabin at that point. I almost laughed out loud when I heard that - and I mean no offense to the families of the victims, as this is no laughing matter, but I almost find it offensive myself to hear theories like these put forth by those with apparently nothing better to do. (The reason I had to laugh is that this "residue" was conclusively proven to be simple air conditioning duct insulation from near the center wing fuel tank, which had entered the cabin as the tank itself exploded.)

The problem with these conspiracy theories is that they always look at one little isolated piece of evidence at a time and just come up with wild stories that only barely even fit that little piece of evidence. If you look at all the other evidence at the same time, the theory doesn't fit at all. This is true of all of the conspiracy theories out there for TWA 800. In fact, if you actually read the accident report (which most of these theorists haven't even bothered to do), all of these theories are discussed and usually there are many, many reasons provided why they don't fit the evidence. This is not normally done in an accident report - they usually just list the cause and the steps taken to determine the cause - but obviously the NTSB acknowledged that there were all these theories out there and they went to great pains to provide evidence to disprove them.

The report is something like 500 pages long including appendixes - longer than any other accident report I've ever read, and much of it deals with these conspiracy theories.

You know, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote "when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." That's the story here. Nobody wants to believe the fuel tank just exploded, but it did. No other theory fits the evidence - they are all impossible, for various reasons - and the only theory that does fit the evidence is a fuel tank explosion.

I also don't see why it's so hard to believe, anyway - it was not the first ever spontaneous center wing tank explosion and the NTSB believes it will not be the last. Their most important recommendations for improving fuel tank safety were considered too costly to implement by the FAA.

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: Airxliban
Posted 2004-10-13 07:38:55 and read 6426 times.

I just found out today that N93119 was a plane originally delivered to the Iranian Air Force and brought back to the US when the Shah was overthrown.

The sister ship of N93119 was the plane that exploded over Madrid due to the fuel spark.

Coincidence?

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: BFS
Posted 2004-10-13 21:00:22 and read 6284 times.

I'm not quite sure what to believe on this subject, except that nobody *the public* will ever know for sure what actually happened. I personally am not a conspiracy theorists, but I think it is extremely healthy to keep an open mind. I do not know why so many people are so keen to believe what is spoonfed to them from a biased party if certain truths ever came to light. Governments, some more than most, have shown themselves to be untrustworthy; so I for one shall take everything into consideration and hope for the best.

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: Jeb94
Posted 2004-10-13 22:14:20 and read 6221 times.

Its most likely a fuel tank explosion. The US Military has suffered one or two explosions in partially empty tanks on KC-135 tankers in addition to the civilian explosions. Also, in a Discovery Channel special covering recent aviation disasters the investigators, pointing to marks on the recovered front spar and corresponding marks on the remains of the front side of the center fuel tank, made a good case for a center fuel tank explosion. The marks that were pointed out could've only come from the front of the tank impacting the front spar.

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: Airxliban
Posted 2004-10-14 09:51:09 and read 6095 times.

can anyone confirm that N93119 was ex-Iranian Air Force?

This is what was told to me by an aviation safety and human factors expert, but never in my readings or research did i hear that this was the case.

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: NIKV69
Posted 2004-10-14 14:02:17 and read 6036 times.

TWA800 was shot down by a missle. People in the area saw it and a Korean Veteran Pilot flying in the area saw it. Could be the armed forces. As for accounting for missles the government has proven that it can hide anything and silence people. I do not believe that a spark in the empty center fuel tank exploded, that is nonsense.

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: Airxliban
Posted 2004-10-14 19:10:40 and read 5934 times.

it happened in 1976 to an Iranian Air Force Boeing 747 in Madrid.

The particular aircraft was apparently from the same batch from where Boeing produced N93119.

I am still trying to confirm whether the above statement is true.

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: ILSApproach
Posted 2004-10-15 08:50:53 and read 5787 times.

TWA N93119, 20083, line # 153, a 747-131 shows delivered to TWA 10-27-71 and appears to have served it's whole career as a TWA airplane until flight 800.

There were a couple of TWA 741's that were sold to the Iranian Air Force though, after being converted to 131F's (freighters) by Boeing.


http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/?file=ficheopp&opp=TWA

Mike

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: JMChladek
Posted 2004-10-15 09:40:53 and read 5777 times.

The light airplane packed with explosives theory was total......there hasn't been a word to explain just how total it was but it totally was.  Big grin That KC area investigative reporter and author of the book that proposed the idea seems like a real idiot especially when he explained "easy to do for a pilot". Yeah, right. Fine, you go get a PPL and try and fly a Piper into a 742 at night climbing and see just how "easy" it is, then we might talk.

The missile theory I didn't buy either. The type of missiles they were showing were Stinger types, which are IR seeking missiles. As such, if they had been fired they would not have homed in on the center part of the plane, but rather the engine exhaust and even then they aren't packed with that much in the way of high explosives. Missiles like that are intended to do critical damage to a small area rather then extreme catastrophic damage. The IAF figured that out with A-4s getting lost to Soviet SA-7 shoulder fired missiles. So they put the tail pipe extensions on the A-4s to move the blast radius away from the rudder and elevator in the event of a hit from an SA-7 or similar missile. Granted later missiles are packed with more explosives then an SA-7. But, somebody tried that on the DHL A300 freighter in Iraq and showed just how difficult it was to bring a plane down, even if it hit (i.e. it didn't crash although landing was a real chore).

The biggest hits against both these theories is that none of these proposed "attack" methods have been repeated either. No extremist has flown a small plane into a climbing airliner or successfully brought down an airliner with a shoulder fire missile from the altitudes we are talking about. I would figure if such an attack strategy did work, then it would become a part of the terrorist play book.

As for the Navy missile theory, a conspiracy is only as strong as its weakest link. And if such a thing had been done, then scuttlebutt of the incident would have gone up one side of the ship and down the other before the ship got back to port. As a result, even if a lid was ordered, somebody would have talked to the press by now or at least blabbed it at a local bar, resulting in a trail that can be traced back. That is hundreds of Naval personell that would need to have tabs kept on, a logistical nightmare and statistical and practical impossibility.

Topic: RE: "Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel
Username: AirxLiban
Posted 2004-10-17 07:23:28 and read 5652 times.

thanks for the info regarding the aircraft ILS

now an interesting question arises...

were N93119 and the Iranian Air Force 747-131F 5-8014 (formerly 5-283 and N53111) from the same batch that Boeing produced?

and it looks like the answer to that question is no...

N53111 msn 19677 was active as of 9/26/1970

N93119 msn 20083 was active as of 10/27/1971

interestingly enough 5-283 and 5-8104 cannot be found in the Air Fleets database.

looks like there is no link between these two aircraft

unless boeing produces batches that span a year?

anyone know?

also according to air fleets N93119 spent a year at Boeing. what the hell were they doing to it?

[Edited 2004-10-17 07:34:32]


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/