Womack17 From United States, joined Apr 2004, 420 posts, RR: 6 Posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7425 times:
Okay let me begin by saying that I apologize if my forthcoming question has already been asked and answered in another thread, but I was looking over a former TWA FA's web page as she has created a fantastic web site. In looking over the very interesting information she made a statement in her conclusion that really caught me by surprise. Any information on the following statement would be most appreciated.
UAL747 From United States, joined Dec 1999, 6511 posts, RR: 36 Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7394 times:
There are many theories as to what happened on TWA 800. I did a research paper on the topic my freshman year at Boston University. I interviewed several pilots who wished to remain nameless who said they do not believe the fuel tank story, and some who did. The final investigation stated that it was indeed at short in a wire that ran through the center fuel tank which was near empty at the time causing the explosion, but many believe that TWA 800 was accidentally shot down during missile testing by the US Navy.
InTheSky74 From United States, joined Sep 2005, 543 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7371 times:
And that missile theory sounds more the case as many pilots flying at that time said they had seen something in the air going towards the plane prior to the explosion.
B6JFKH81 From United States, joined Mar 2006, 1145 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7328 times:
I too did an entire research project for my Aviation Law class. I even obtained a full official copy of the NTSB report direct from the NTSB and read through the entire darned thing. Very interesting publication if you ever get to read it.
But I will be very blunt about this. I am from Long Island and know at least 15 people that were at the beach and saw things unfold right in front of their faces...most of which have never stepped onboard an aircraft again. All of them saw something streak up from the horizon and hit the aircraft. Based on some of the ATC transcripts released, pilots called in while making their descent into JFK indicating the same thing.
The theory that what these people saw was actually the aircraft suddently climbing out of control while on fire is rediculous along with other theories that came up as well...the ocean burp was very interesting but rediculous!!
The theory that got smushed was that a military operation shot the aircraft down. Why? Who knows, but it probably will never be revealed. My theory is that there was someone on that aircraft that was a great danger to international security and the aircraft was shot down, or there was a mis-fire from a military ship...but that is some pretty good aim for a mis-fire.
This is going to be one of those mysteries that will live on forever, and may god bless those lost in the accident and the families that go to visit the memorial each year on the anniversary.
"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
TinkerBelle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7312 times:
Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 5): My theory is that there was someone on that aircraft that was a great danger to international security and the aircraft was shot down,
I've personally never heard of that theory. Did the passenger manuscript indicate that could have been the case? Any 'theories' to back that claim up?
There's a book on TWA 800 and it's an interesting read. I forgot what it's called but after reading it, I'll stick with the mis-fired missile theory.
Like someone said, you just opened a can of raw tuna my friend!
B6JFKH81 From United States, joined Mar 2006, 1145 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7293 times:
I never went looking for passenger manifests and the like. The report I was working on would never be on time if I started going into the theories that were out there! But I am sticking to any missile-based theory that holds the most water.
"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
777236ER From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 12706 posts, RR: 57 Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7252 times:
You have to bear in mind that most airline employees, including pilots, know very little about how an aircraft flies, it's systems and its limitations. A pilot doesn't believe a fuel tank ignition can happen? It must be so!
If you don't believe the NTSB, you should never fly. You should probably also make sure you live in such a remote place as to ensure no aircraft will ever fly over your house.
ROACSM9E From United States, joined Jan 2006, 7 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7231 times:
As a former TWA employee, I along with many others, feel that the "theory" of a "mis-fired" missile is no theory at all. Have any of you noticed that one of the most publizied stories was so quick to disappear? My friend, you have opened Pandora's box... I only hope that the TWA employees speak loud enough for everyone to hear!
Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7231 times:
I was one that was a believer of the missle theory. There were just too many cooincidences at the time. Now I believe what the investigations have said. There are many people that testified as to what they saw, mostly non-educated in aviation. What they think they saw was perceived as to what actually happened. It started to make sense. The kicker for me was that Boeing had the same exact problems with other models in thier line up and tank explosions were proven to be the culprit.
Phuebner From United States, joined Feb 2006, 244 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7196 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 1): but many believe that TWA 800 was accidentally shot down during missile testing by the US Navy.
Let the "pandora's box" be opened! I am in the US Navy and I can tell you that there was NO WAY the navy shot it down. If that was the case the personnel on the ships involved would have talked by now. The navy has control but don't believe that they have so much control over our thoughts and speech that something would not have been said by now. Yes we are in the military and as such it is not a democracy but we are not communists. We don't fear for our lives. When a navy ship shoots a missle more than a few people know about it, several hundred do. I know that if I was on that ship and knowingly shot that missile and it hit a civilian plane like that I would have talked about it. The navy couldn't stop it even if they tried. Now, many have said that they visually and electronically saw a missile trail, what caused that? I have heard from a gentleman who says he was involved with the research of this accident and he says that 2 men on a small boat, of middle eastern descent, used a hand held device to do it. They launched themselves from Canada. The navy made this known to the president as soon as it happened. The president chose to keep this quiet. Why is this? It would make him look bad. This happened during Clinton's era. this is the president that said, himself, that he was given the opportunity to apprehend Osama Bin Ladin but he turned them down.
This makes alot more sense than the navy doing it. By the way, this gentleman who gave me this info has proof and is going to give it to me. Once I get it I will pass it on.
Remember this, Your Body is a temple Not a pull toy!
B6JFKH81 From United States, joined Mar 2006, 1145 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7171 times:
That is a really interesting point. These hand held rocket launcher things...how far up can the missile go? What is the range on a rocket like that? I have heard this theory as well and never dismissed it, but also never was informed of the capabilities of such a missile.
"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
Seanp11 From United States, joined Jan 2006, 290 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7157 times:
Quoting 777236ER (Reply 9): You have to bear in mind that most airline employees, including pilots, know very little about how an aircraft flies, it's systems and its limitations. A pilot doesn't believe a fuel tank ignition can happen? It must be so!
If you don't believe the NTSB, you should never fly. You should probably also make sure you live in such a remote place as to ensure no aircraft will ever fly over your house.
Bingo. I believe that the NTSB found no residue of explosives, or evidence that there was an explosion outside the plane, which would have been what a missile would have done.
Also, with the conspiracy theory, something this bad, with so many innocent people dying, would not be without a whistle blower. Its hard to believe that NOBODY in the NTSB felt that covering this up was wrong. I think that if this had been a cover up we would have known by now.
Spartanmjf From United States, joined Nov 2005, 354 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7065 times:
The bottom line, no matter how you look at it, is that the 747 has no history of unexplained self-destruction. There are no real documented issues that were not related to either terrorism or to poor maintenance/failure to follow Boeing TSB requirements. The only incident that comes close to TW800 is the China Airlines accident, but the entire history of China Airlines is so dramatically different than that of TW that the comparison is potentially meaningless.
Scalebuilder From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7046 times:
Quoting Phuebner (Reply 12): The navy has control but don't believe that they have so much control over our thoughts and speech that something would not have been said by now. Yes we are in the military and as such it is not a democracy but we are not communists.
I will buy this argument. Having military background myself, I just do not believe that the navy could be such a "police institution" that the truth would not have been revealed by today. So I believe you are right.
Quoting Phuebner (Reply 12): I have heard from a gentleman who says he was involved with the research of this accident and he says that 2 men on a small boat, of middle eastern descent, used a hand held device to do it. They launched themselves from Canada.
This is news to me, but what you just said just increased my appetite for more info. Was this observation discussed openly in the media in the wake of this disaster?
777236ER From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 12706 posts, RR: 57 Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7040 times:
Quoting Spartanmjf (Reply 16): The bottom line, no matter how you look at it, is that the 747 has no history of unexplained self-destruction.
The bottom line is the NTSB report. Disagree with it if you want, but do it scientifically. What, exactly, do you not agree with in the report?
Phuebner From United States, joined Feb 2006, 244 posts, RR: 6 Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7027 times:
Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 17): This is news to me, but what you just said just increased my appetite for more info. Was this observation discussed openly in the media in the wake of this disaster?
You're right! It's news to me as well. I do remember something about a handheld missile flying but it was quickly dismissed. Somehow, the conspiracy theorists ran with the navy thing. My appetite has been wet by this info and I am intrigued on seeing more. Like I said I will pass it on once I get ahold of it.
Remember this, Your Body is a temple Not a pull toy!
Spartanmjf From United States, joined Nov 2005, 354 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7027 times:
The NTSB report is the bottom line, but it does not explain any number of inconsistencies and impossibilities. The laughable CIA video simulation notwithstanding, Boeing 747 aircraft do not have a history of self-destructing, either before or after this tragedy.
777236ER From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 12706 posts, RR: 57 Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7016 times:
Quoting Spartanmjf (Reply 20): The NTSB report is the bottom line, but it does not explain any number of inconsistencies and impossibilities.
Go on then, name them, with references.
You can't just discredit an NTSB report without any evidence. If you seriously think the NTSB lied, or made such a grevious mistake, you definately shouldn't be flying anywhere in the world today.
Phuebner From United States, joined Feb 2006, 244 posts, RR: 6 Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7004 times:
Quoting Womack17 (Reply 7): Can anyone offer an explanation about what former TWA employees believe happened to Flight 800.
My father who is a 37 year now retired employee, was on standby to head to the site when this happened, the theories talked about here were very frequent within the employees.
Quoting TinkerBelle (Reply 15): Have you noticed nobody has even attempted to answeri the question you asked? LOL
I think you haven't read through all the posts.
Quoting Seanp11 (Reply 14): Also, with the conspiracy theory, something this bad, with so many innocent people dying, would not be without a whistle blower. Its hard to believe that NOBODY in the NTSB felt that covering this up was wrong. I think that if this had been a cover up we would have known by now.
BINGO!!! That's why I'm not exactly believing all the teories, even the one I brought out.
Remember this, Your Body is a temple Not a pull toy!
TinkerBelle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6950 times:
Quoting Womack17 (Reply 7): Can anyone offer an explanation about what former TWA employees believe happened to Flight 800.
Quoting Phuebner (Reply 22): Have you noticed nobody has even attempted to answeri the question you asked? LOL
I think you haven't read through all the posts.
I sure have but nobody had answered the thread starter's question.... anyways, that's beyond the point.
Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 5): This is going to be one of those mysteries that will live on forever
I couldn't have said it better myself. Until someone someday comes out with some evidence that this and that is what happened, this will be quite a mystery.
Quoting Phuebner (Reply 19): Like I said I will pass it on once I get ahold of it.
LTBEWR From United States, joined Jan 2004, 9290 posts, RR: 7 Reply 24, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6897 times:
Perhaps the TWA people who don't believe the 'fuel tank explosion' theory have friends who worked in TWA's maintenance or executive positions then, and didn't want them to be blamed for this disaster. By the way, the TWA 800 aircraft was owned and operated by the government of Iran during the 1970's for a few years adding to the considental issues. It was also a very old aircraft with a lot of hours and possibly more susceptable to wiring damage problems including the fuel tanks, as the official NTSB report cited as the triggering cause.
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2337 posts, RR: 3 Reply 25, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6750 times:
The NTSB's conclusion is not stated as absolute fact but rather "probable cause." The NTSB is very careful to offer what they believe to be the most likely cause of the incident, and there are some problems with the investigation leading to their conclusions, but the problems rely on other problems in order to gain any momentum at all. None on their own means much.
Some facts:
There was explosive residue detected multiple times in multiple locations including a leading edge, a piece that subsequently couldnt be accounted for. However, retesting using identical equipment resulted in all previous positive hits to be negative. One jokingly said this proved the equipment to be 50% reliability.
Other explosive residue positives were explained by a dog training exercise. However, the handler stated that he was alone on the aircraft when he finished, and this was supposedly something like 25 minutes prior to that plane's departure. Some have speculated that the training exercise actually took place on a different aircraft.
A MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defence System) missile has an effective altitude up to approximately 10,000 feet. It's important to note that effective altitude is different than effective range - most conspiracy types happily quote the latter as the former hoping no one knows the difference. The actual effective altitude may be higher (secret) but all indications are that TWA800 at 13,800 feet when the initial event occurred, was too high for anything but a lucky shot. These missiles are small and don't carry much explosive punch, but then they aren't intended to down aircraft by their explosive force alone. They will knock out an engine or some other critical system. There is an inconsistency in the NTSB report with regards to whether there was evidence of a penetration by such a weapon or not. The NTSB assumed that if such a missile penetrated the fuselage and did not explode, it would exit directly opposite where it came in, and the exit hole would be significantly larger than the entry hole. Since no such pair of holes directly opposite each other was found, it was concluded that no missle penetrated. However, in the same breath the same report notes that a missile penetrating the fuselage would be expected to impact internal structures, break apart and diverge an unknown amount. Thus it appears that the expectation that the missile would fly in a straight line and exit is questionable, and since this expectation was the criteria used to reject missile penetration, that conclusion would also have to be questionable.
A larger missile, as the Navy theory involves, could easily have reached that high, but it would also have left obvious evidence whether the warhead exploded or not (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1588642.stm). The Navy theory has many, many other problems besides the whistle-blower one, which is why Jack Cashill's theory has morphed into something along the lines of: The US Navy really did shoot down TWA800, by accident, but they were aiming at a small plane packed with explosives and piloted by terrorists who were themselves trying to blow TWA 800 from the sky. Something like that.
TWA 800 was said to go into a "zoom" climb due to the loss of the forward section of fuselage which caused a shift in cg. Pan Am 103 also suffered loss of the same forward section, yet it pitched nose down and continued down regardless of the same shift in cg. The explanation offered for PA103's behaviour was that the control cables must have pulled or jammed in such a way as to lock the elevators in the down position. Apparently, though, once all hydraulic pressure is lost the control surfaces will float so no locking could occur.
As for the witnesses, yes, some of them reported that they saw something rise up to TWA 800. There are numerous problems with the witness statements, but some of them are more interesting than others. However, in the end, only a very few are actually that interesting to the point their descriptions can't easily be explained. Unfortunately, witness statements don't add up to a hill of beans without corroberating physical evidence of which there is none, nada, zilch, zero.
On the other hand, we know for a fact that a spark in such a fuel tank can and has caused damage and loss of life even if one dismisses the NTSB testing during the investigation. Fuel tank ignition suppression has been an issue in jet aviation from the very beginning, and there are ample examples of fuel tanks igniting. The *only* thing missing from the NTSB report is a specific ignition source. Yes they pointed to the FQIS but there was no conclusive evidence that the FQIS was the culprit.
It is entirely possible, however unlikely, that a missle was launched from a boat, that by some unfortunate miracle it reached TWA800, that it didn't explode, that it did penetrate the fuselage, that it did impact some of the wiring which created a short which then fed excess voltage into the CWT, caused the spark and ignited the fuel which then ruptured the aircraft causing it to break up. There is absolutely no doubt the CWT did ignite, and there is absolutely no doubt that the ignition did lead to the destruction of the aircraft. It would have been the luckiest shot ever, but it's not an impossibility. And therein lies the problem - there is no way to be absolutely 100% certain of the event - 99.99999999% maybe, but that still leaves room for doubt.
26 Seanp11: http://www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA800/exhibits/missileanalysis.pdf For all of you missile theorists.
27 AAden: the only solid evidence for the missile is the eyewitnesses reports and history shows that eyewitness reports are unreliable at best.
28 WesternA318: *opens up Pandora* Ummm....most COMPETENT airline employees and pilots included know how an aircraft flies *steps up on soapbox* I worked at TWA from
29 NorthStarDC4M: and just to foggy this... cause i feel like it... IF you believe a news writer by the name of James Sanders, who wrote 2 books about what happend to h
30 Cellardoor: Have any of you read Nelson DeMille's "Night Fall?" It's popular fiction that deals with Flight 800. Great read!
31 Tsaord: Some FORMER TWA employees indead feel this way. AA has many of them from STL in ORD. One of whom was with TWA at ORD when this happened. We were talki
32 TomTurner: There was, I believe, PETN(?) found...but the explanation provided for that was the aircraft had been used to train bomb sniffing dogs. Tom
33 TomTurner: Yes, there was James Sanders. The parties that took the samples were prosecuted rather vigourously if I recall correctly. There was Pierre Salinger a
34 Golftango: What, no mention of the asteroid theory yet? I am a firm believer that it was something other than a CFT explosion.
35 Onetogo: How about his book "Mayday"? Awesome read!
36 F9Animal: I chatted with a TWA pilot in 1998. He flew that particular aircraft several times, and he said the fuel tank theory is pure BS. He said he had flown
37 AA777223: God, I hope you aren't a pilot! Perhaps if you think pilots know very little about theri aircraft, you should be more afraid to fly. I don't know wha
38 MalpensaSFO: There were hundreds in the Hamptons that night that know what really happened as well... Yet true to the U.S. government, they are all brushed aside a
39 TUNisia: These can't be repeated enough times.... "We saw what appeared to be a flare going straight up. As a matter of fact, we thought it was from a boat. It
40 QXatFAT: It is hard for me to believe certain theories. I can not just throw them out though. I can not believe this one because something would have came thre
41 AAden: eyewitness testimony unreliable at best. how many people saw a third shooter at the dealy plaza. these people are just lookuing for attention[Edited
42 Turpentyine: I have one problem with this. If this was done by terrorists than the whole world would of known about it. No matter how hard the president tried he
43 Phuebner: Plausible my ass! Read the previous posts, especially the one I wrote because I don't feel like re-writing it.....unless you're one of the US Navy is
44 Phuebner: First, I must put out that I am NOT a conspiracy theorist. I believe that the fuel tank explosion is probably the likely cause. I put out the "terror
45 QXatFAT: Thank you for backing up my statement above Two good minds think a like
46 QXatFAT: Are you refering to my belief? Or peoples belief in general for the "accdent by the US Navy?"
47 Turpentyine: Thats weird when I posted my statement your post wasnt there, and I thought mine was first. I guess there was a delay.
48 Flywithjohn: Don't get me wrong I read the NTSB report I did 28 page report on it in my 2nd year at Embry. I believe it was the center fuel tank ignited. A coffee
49 QXatFAT: Oh no dont think I was trying to get on you for that. I put that on there with the because I figured we posted at the same time. Thats where the two
50 Phuebner: NOOOO! You don't sound whacked to me. It's the US Navy did it theorist that are whacked.
51 Turpentyine: I think if they [the terrorists] really did it they wouldnt of let themselves be dismissed so easily. Otherwise their whole mission would of been a c
52 MalpensaSFO: There were hundreds.... BTW.... Most of them were at parties for the Hampstons Summer Social Season of 96', those people at those parties didnt need
53 Hawk44: They did, a letter was sent to one of the news papers in either Egypt or London claiming responsibility for the downing of TWA 800 Hawk44
54 Molykote: This pilot is probably a competent airman but his (and perhaps your) logic skills could use some work. Nobody has said that empty tanks were unusual.
55 Jetfuel: So why the sudden push for anti-missle defence on civil aircraft???? Naturally the US government never wanted to admit it was a terrorist attack on TW
56 Dispatchguy: I flew on the incident aircraft back in 1995, and took the attached picture. I thought the "Skyliner" titles were cool. I apologize for the scratches
57 Timboflier215: to go back to the thread starters original question, whenever a horrific event such as TWA 800 occurs, the employees are bound to start the rumour mil
58 OyKIE: This tragic event did seem like a navy accident right from the start. I remember reading in Aviation Week that a pilot in a C-130 saw something he bel
59 Monteycarlos: I have something small to add on this, and let me make it very clear that I am not contributing any theory or the actual NTSB conclusion about the acc
60 Jamesbuk: Theres one thing you have to say to yourself and that is; You DONT have evidence on what happened to TWA800 yet the NTSB DOES have evidence on what ha
61 Flight7E7: Strange tho'.....Just as DC-10's were grounded in 79 due to the AA disaster (engine pylon maintenance), MD-80's to some extent AS jackscrew-incident,
62 777236ER: Ask any F/A or pilot to quote you the Navier-Stokes equations and see what response you get. Pilots know what the manufacturers want them to know. Th
63 Jumpseat70: The night this happened my children were sitting on a boat in Long Island. My daughter, who is a college graduate now will swear in a courtroom, along
64 Khobar: TWA800 was said to be in a zoom climb, so this statement could easily be describing TWA800 in that zoom climb. Wait, he *heard* the sound *before* he
65 Boeing Nut: If it walks like a duck.............
66 Msllsmith: The night flt 800 went down I immediatly got on the phone to an old friend of mine, retired Airforce, aviation consultant and a hell of good pilot. I
67 Thegooddoctor: Unfortunately I'm sure the answer to this question will probably not be fully disclosed for quite a while. There is a third option besides the Navy a
68 757225: I don't believe there has been an incident of fuel pump arching in an empty fuel tank before TW800 and no incidents since.........just about every jet
69 Khobar: There was no independent chemical analysis of wreckage that floated ashore conducted by journalists. There was, however, James Sanders who contracted
70 Khobar: The specific fuel pump from TWA800 was not recovered, but it was excluded as a source of ignition by other means. This might be of interest to you: "
71 777STL: Slightly off topic, but what has become of Flt 800's wreckage?
72 Khobar: From: http://www.ntsb.gov/Academy/faq.htm#twa800 Why is the reconstruction of TWA flight 800 wreckage housed at the NTSB Academy? The sheer size and
73 AR385: I cannot offer an explanation as to what other TWA employees feel about the TWA 800 crashed. Or why it crashed. I can offer one about this F/A in que
74 F9Animal: What I meant to say is that he gave me the look in the eyes, no flinch, nothing. He stated he flew that particular bird on an empty tank many times,
75 AR385: I promise I would not get myself into this, but, just so you know, there were two 737s' one in Bangkok and one in Manila. The one in Manila was a 734
76 Seanp11: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...320X00613&ntsbno=DCA01RA024&akey=1 Other aircraft have had central fuel tank explosions.
77 Womack17: ROFLMAO - Thanks I needed that. I never meant to begin such a lengthy and off-topic discussion. I guess I should have started the question with very
78 Dtwclipper: Tonight @ 6:00pm Eastern on the Histroy channel: http://www.historychannel.com/global...weekly.jsp?NetwCode=THC&timezone=1 "On July 17, 1996, at 8:31
79 Phuebner: It is also at 6pm on the History channel in the pacific timezone. It's called "Conspiracy?".
80 Msllsmith: " target=_blank>http://www.historychannel.com/global...one=1 Thanks. There is always room to revisit something like this. I'll definitely tune in.
81 Khobar: Fortunately for us all, disasters don't rely on only single events to happen. The empty fuel tank, by itself, didn't do it. Faulty wiring, by itself,
82 Scalebuilder: I have no doubt at all that this guy knew how to fly that bird. I just don't think that the "no flinching" of the eyes during your conversation add m
83 Legacytravel: I have heard of this theory as well. I believe in this theory the most. I find it impossible for the US Navy to cover up the inadvertint shooting dow
85 Thegooddoctor: Awfully sad we had to spend all the money to replace all those fuel pumps only to have to face the facts of Al Qaeda terrorists on U.S. soil only a f
86 777STL: Al Qaeda would have taken credit for it if that was the case. There is no point in committing a terrorist act if no one knows you did it, that's the
87 Slider: I've had this TW800 discussion countless times on A.net before and they've been heated debates at that. There are several different identities of post
88 Khobar: What Lewis D. Schiliro actually said was: "Two days after the crash, experienced analysts from DIA's Missile and Space Intelligence Center (MISIC) we
89 Bennett123: B8JFKH81 The theory that got smushed was that a military operation shot the aircraft down. Why? Who knows, but it probably will never be revealed. My
90 777236ER: Blah blah blah, more nonsense from conspiracy nuts, yet no critque of distinct passages in the NTSB report.
91 Lando: I really do not know what to believe. There seems to be so much to contradict the center fuel tank story, and I believe that story less and less every
92 Phuebner: The teory got smushed because it was a nutjob theory!
93 Womack17: Pandora closes her box and goes home.
94 AndesSMF: The Art Bell crowd comes out again!! 1. The NTSB does not assign cause, they assign 'probable cause'. The exact sequence of events can usually never b
95 Pope: In an era where media routinely posts pictures of classified interrogation prisons on the front page of newspapers, where unidentified sources provide
96 Phuebner: That number is extremely small...think 350 to 400 personnel.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Apr 2004, 420 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 12706 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
