Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.  
User currently offlinepenguins From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 332 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 33911 times:

Hello all,
I am sorry if this is a repost. I recently came across an article that states that a team of investigators who worked on the case are claiming that TWA 800 was downed by "foreign object". They dissent from the official claim that the center fuel tank was ignited by a spark. More info will be release tomorrow during a news conference. A documentary will be released on EPIX next month dealing with the latest claims. Personally, I don't believe the claims but, who knows! In any case, RIP all those who lost their lives on that fateful evening.
Some useful links:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/18...in-new-documentary-claim-original/

http://press.epixhd.com/programming/twa-flight-800/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB1dUfVfoG4

[Edited 2013-06-18 21:56:26]

[Edited 2013-06-18 21:56:36]

[Edited 2013-06-18 22:45:55]

271 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 33851 times:

The Clinton administration believed it to be foul play right off the bat. They immediately closed near airport parking and curbside check-in after the event, something not generally done after an accident.

At the time I felt there was something we were not being told, as even if it had been a bomb or missile, why would the next action to be to take those steps?

The final conclusion may be accurate, but at the time of the accident, the administration believed it to be terrorism.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 33777 times:

Wow, this thread again?   This one pops up every few months, but we actually just had a thread on this a month or two ago.

There are some curious facts, but in the end, it seems way more of a stretch to believe any of the conspiracies I've heard than it is to believe the official story. Most conspiracy theories I've seen are assumptions built on assumptions built on assumptions.

It will be interesting to see if anything new ever pops up, but until it does, I wish people would move on from this tired subject. Though, if I truly believed justice was not served, I don't think I'd be quiet about it... as long as both sides remain respectful no real harm is done



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 33735 times:

The reason its news is that six investigators claimed to be under a gag order but now are retired and don't care. Supposedly they don't claim to know for sure, but they don't agree with the official cause.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinegoosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 398 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 33694 times:

I think this was a very very sensitive case. You had the Russians shooting down the Korean B747 then the Americans shooting down the Iranaian airbus and then this case where apparently the Navy shot down their own airliner. No doubt one day someone will come forward from the Navy to confirm this?

User currently offlineSXDFC From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2320 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 33625 times:

I think you or the mods should edit the title of this thread to be a bit more clear about this recent article, as the title of this thread is very misleading..


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 33589 times:

Quoting penguins (Thread starter):
I recently came across an article that states that a team of investigators who worked on the case are claiming that TWA 800 was downed by "foreign object".

It wasn't. Witnesses saw the flaming pieces, which look vaguely like a missile, before they heard the explosion.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
The final conclusion may be accurate, but at the time of the accident, the administration believed it to be terrorism.

TWA 800 went down about a year after the discovery of the Bojinka plot and just before the Atlanta Olympics, so there was pretty good reason to be even more suspicious of foul play than other accidents.

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 5):
No doubt one day someone will come forward from the Navy to confirm this?

Why not already? Do you really think that with Wikileaks, et. al. something like that would have been able to remain secret for 17 years? Not to mention the whole ship full of sailors (who of course are a group of people who would never get drunk and say things they shouldn't) who would know if their ship shot down a plane or at least launched a missile. We're talking about a country that saw a presidency crumble because of tape on a doorway, but you think that a Navy ship could shoot down an airliner just off the coast of the country's largest city, not to mention home to tons of media, and keep it all covered up for 17 years? I have some beachfront property in Iowa for you.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinedenverdanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 33501 times:

It's not a surprise to me. Read the accident report. It reads like no other accident report I've read. Very basic for one. They never were able to explain what the initiation of the explosion was. The report is filled with conditional wording--maybe, possibly etc. The official explanation for what happened is filled with just as many suppositions and assumptions that those who support it accuse others of.

One oft repeated misinformation tidbit is that "it was a hot day" that day. No, it really wasn't. Look at the historical record. It was in the mid to low 80's, and the flight took off in the early evening, when things had cooled down from that temp. It had been flying for what, 12 minutes before it exploded suddenly. The hot gases in the fuel tank thing is baloney. It never happened before that on a 747 and it didn't happen in the 6 or so years afterwards before implementation of an unnecessary inerting system. You can't ignite jet fuel in a tank like that--you have to have a very powerful ignition, such as a bomb or lightning.

Aviation history is filled with examples of types of planes having a flaw that results in more than one accident, such as the Lockheed Electra engine/wing vibration issue, DC10 cargo door/hydraulics, 737 rudder issue, Comet pressurization etc. Other examples of tank explosions that are used as examples by people who defend that theory, which it is--just a theory too, since it was never proved either, those accidents had initiating events--such as lighting strikes or bombs. Planes do not suddenly explode in midair of their own accord. My dad is a physicist and none of the other physicists at his work bought into the TWA 800 "story." I have no doubt the fuel tank exploded... but it's more likely it was an after initiating explosion event.

What's likely to happen at some point in the future when the truth does come out, is that Bill Clinton and certain congressional leaders will say they did it for the good of the country. Imagine what it would have done to the economy if we had had a terrorist event like that publicized--that will be their line. There's a discussion to be had about that--whether that was right or wrong. In retrospect, it appears it was a fatal error for the country not to prepare it for terrorism. I remember when Clinton was leaving office, he had an interview with on a TV program. He was asked what was the greatest challenge the country faced in the future. He said "terrorism." I didn't understand his answer or what he was talking about at the time. Americans had more than a decade of events warning of the future to come--from Pan Am 103, to the first WTC bombing, to the Cole and embassy bombings, and TWA 800. Covering up TWA 800 was the wrong thing for the country.

[Edited 2013-06-18 23:03:36]

User currently onlinereality From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 485 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 33464 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 7):
Do you really think that with Wikileaks, et. al. something like that would have been able to remain secret for 17 years?
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 7):
you think that a Navy ship could shoot down an airliner just off the coast of the country's largest city, not to mention home to tons of media, and keep it all covered up for 17 years?

Conspiracy theorists NEVER give up. Facts will never ever convince them. Common sense never prevails.


User currently offlinedenverdanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 33415 times:

Quoting reality (Reply 10):
Facts will never ever convince them.

And what are your facts for the fuel tank self ignition theory? Read the report and come back.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1576 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 33406 times:

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 8):

My problem with the report is the physics of a centre tank explosion that sheers off the front of the aircraft but allows the wing box to retain sufficient integrity for the plane to fly on straight and level for several minutes.



BV
User currently offlinedenverdanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 33353 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 12):
My problem with the report is the physics of a centre tank explosion that sheers off the front of the aircraft but allows the wing box to retain sufficient integrity for the plane to fly on straight and level for several minutes.

exactly. they should never put forth that idea/video to excuse or explain reports. it's contradicted by other evidence as well, such as radar returns and accident debris location.


User currently offlinericknroll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 813 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 33261 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 12):
My problem with the report is the physics of a centre tank explosion that sheers off the front of the aircraft but allows the wing box to retain sufficient integrity for the plane to fly on straight and level for several minutes.

IANAE, but the wingbox is about the strongest part of the plane. When something explodes there, it is the weakest part that will give first, which would not be the frame of the wingbox itself, but other parts, such as the forward fuselage.

[Edited 2013-06-19 00:13:38]

User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 33102 times:

RIP Marcel Dadi my twin brother and best friend lost on board TWA800

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D24kQtvCq1k

I will never forget our happy times together

     



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1576 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 32987 times:

Quoting ricknroll (Reply 14):
IANAE, but the wingbox is about the strongest part of the plane.

Strong yes but it has to be to keep the wings from folding up due to the tons of lift applied to them, structures of this type (should) only retain their strength as long as they remain intact but the front of the wing box was found at the beginning of the debris path, so in theory the aircraft should not have retained the ability to fly which according to the report it did.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 15):
RIP Marcel Dadi my twin brother and best friend lost on board TWA800

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D24kQtvCq1k

He was talented..

RIP



BV
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1916 posts, RR: 21
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 32967 times:

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 8):
One oft repeated misinformation tidbit is that "it was a hot day" that day. No, it really wasn't. Look at the historical record. It was in the mid to low 80's, and the flight took off in the early evening, when things had cooled down from that temp. It had been flying for what, 12 minutes before it exploded suddenly. The hot gases in the fuel tank thing is baloney.

Ok, you do realize that temperatures on the tarmac are often significantly higher than normal surface temps, right? You also realize that the plane had been at the gate and on the tarmac for much of the day through to the early evening, exposed to the highest temps of the day. I'm sure you're also aware of the fact that the air conditioning packs, which surround the center tank, had also been running for hours and get extremely hot. You may not agree with what actually brought down the plane, but there really is no doubt that, given the conditions the plane was exposed to prior to take-off, the center tank would have been vaporous, the explanation has been tested scientifically.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 8):
It never happened before that on a 747 and it didn't happen in the 6 or so years afterwards before implementation of an unnecessary inerting system.

There actually had been a number of accidents attributable to fuel vapors prior to flight 800, wasn't a problem that could only happen to the 747.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 8):
You can't ignite jet fuel in a tank like that

It's been tested and shown that, given the presence of vaporized jet fuel, the amount of energy produced from electrical arcing in wiring would be significant enough for ignition. Again, I don't care if you don't believe in the official account, but that doesn't entitle you to make blatantly false statements.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 8):
since it was never proved either

But it has been proven that the theory is plausible, there have been numerous experiments since flight 800, including one where they actually destroyed a 747 center tank.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 8):
What's likely to happen at some point in the future when the truth does come out, is that Bill Clinton and certain congressional leaders will say they did it for the good of the country. Imagine what it would have done to the economy if we had had a terrorist event like that publicized--that will be their line. There's a discussion to be had about that--whether that was right or wrong. In retrospect, it appears it was a fatal error for the country not to prepare it for terrorism. I remember when Clinton was leaving office, he had an interview with on a TV program. He was asked what was the greatest challenge the country faced in the future. He said "terrorism." I didn't understand his answer or what he was talking about at the time. Americans had more than a decade of events warning of the future to come--from Pan Am 103, to the first WTC bombing, to the Cole and embassy bombings, and TWA 800. Covering up TWA 800 was the wrong thing for the country.

Given all of that, I see no reason why it wouldn't have been revealed post-9/11 when the Bush administration was living off terrorism paranoia. If it is some big secret as you say, being 17 years after the fact I just don't see any reason why they would still keep it secret.

Quoting ricknroll (Reply 9):
How much lower can Fox go?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/us/twa-crash-claim/index.html

Looks like they're all grasping at straws.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 32941 times:

Quoting ricknroll (Reply 14):

With JAL123, it only took a relatively small hole in the aft bulkhead to pressurise the vertical stabilizer enough to blow it off of the plane.

It wouldn't take a huge hole in the centre fuel tank to create a pressure wave from the explosion to blast into the cabin. The wing box is a lot stronger than the cabin structure, which is mostly sheet aluminum and stringers.

Like some here, I think the most telling thing against the shoot down theory is that it hasn't been leaked.

People are still questioning the moon landings...of course this will never be settled for everybody.



What the...?
User currently offlinegoosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 398 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 32754 times:

Wasn't there a Thai B737 which exploded on the tarmac at BKK? I believe the blame for this was laid at the door of the fuel tank.

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 32615 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
The Clinton administration believed it to be foul play right off the bat. They immediately closed near airport parking and curbside check-in after the event, something not generally done after an accident.

At the time I felt there was something we were not being told, as even if it had been a bomb or missile, why would the next action to be to take those steps?

These were precautionary measures taken in the immediate aftermath as the cause was unknown at the time and no chances could be taken IN CASE it was foul play or an act of terror. Does not in any way suggest that the findings of the subsequent investigation are to be disregarded.


User currently offlinedenverdanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 32378 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 17):
Ok, you do realize that temperatures on the tarmac are often significantly higher than normal surface temps, right? You also realize that the plane had been at the gate and on the tarmac for much of the day through to the early evening, exposed to the highest temps of the day. I'm sure you're also aware of the fact that the air conditioning packs, which surround the center tank, had also been running for hours and get extremely hot. You may not agree with what actually brought down the plane, but there really is no doubt that, given the conditions the plane was exposed to prior to take-off, the center tank would have been vaporous, the explanation has been tested scientifically.

I really think you should read what you wrote. Seems easily disprovable. I'm surprised they didn't ground the 747 then, or ban all planes for that matter from flying on days where temps have reached 80 degrees. They're flying bombs! They must be going off like pop cans in Arizona after taking off! They must not have planes flying at all in the Middle East and Africa. Don't you think that if this was such a realistic possibility, they would have grounded the planes?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 17):
There actually had been a number of accidents attributable to fuel vapors prior to flight 800, wasn't a problem that could only happen to the 747.

Well, reference which incidents you're talking about. The ones people usually bring up have bombs and lightning as ignition sources.

In the entire history of the 747, we never once had another incident like this. If it can so easily happen, I find that incredible.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 17):
It's been tested and shown that, given the presence of vaporized jet fuel, the amount of energy produced from electrical arcing in wiring would be significant enough for ignition.

Just the "presence of vaporized jet fuel," as you say, means nothing. At what temperatures and what voltage? Where did the necessary voltage come from? I don't think there's enough voltage on the plane to cause this kind of accident.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 17):
But it has been proven that the theory is plausible, there have been numerous experiments since flight 800, including one where they actually destroyed a 747 center tank

They were never able to replicate what happened. They admit that in the report.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 17):
Given all of that, I see no reason why it wouldn't have been revealed post-9/11 when the Bush administration was living off terrorism paranoia. If it is some big secret as you say, being 17 years after the fact I just don't see any reason why they would still keep it secret.

You don't see any reason? How about embarrassment, or loss of faith in government, or scandal, or careers, or fear of court cases and trials?

Lots of things have been hidden from people. Health issues of presidents have been successfully hidden. Roosevelt and Kennedy come to mind, Wilson too. I think it should concern people the FBI and CIA were involved. What about the silly story of the dog training exercise as an excuse for why residue was found on seats? The whole thing stinks.

[Edited 2013-06-19 02:38:21]

User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 32088 times:

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 23):
I'm surprised they didn't ground the 747 then, or ban all planes for that matter from flying on days where temps have reached 80 degrees. They're flying bombs! They must be going off like pop cans in Arizona after taking off! They must not have planes flying at all in the Middle East and Africa.

I don't think anyone suggested that the heat itself caused the explosions. As usual, it was a combination of factors, the likelihood of which can be dramatically reduced with attention to manufacture, maintenance and operation.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 23):
Don't you think that if this was such a realistic possibility, they would have grounded the planes?

Grounding would only occur if there was no easy way to address the problem.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 23):
At what temperatures and what voltage? Where did the necessary voltage come from? I don't think there's enough voltage on the plane to cause this kind of accident.

Neither the occurrence of an explosion nor the size of an explosion are dependent on the magnitude of the voltage. There's either enough to cause a spark or there isn't. It doesn't take many volts at all to create a spark. Around fuel tanks there are fuel pumps and sensors with their associated electrical wiring. I can't say off-hand what the set up is in a 747 but some aircraft have a combination of such equipment inside the fuel tanks.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 23):
They were never able to replicate what happened. They admit that in the report.

They also said their findings were the most probable explanation, which is sometimes the best they can do with the evidence available.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 23):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 17):There actually had been a number of accidents attributable to fuel vapors prior to flight 800, wasn't a problem that could only happen to the 747.
Well, reference which incidents you're talking about. The ones people usually bring up have bombs and lightning as ignition sources.

11 May 1990, Boeing 737-300, EI-BZG, Philippine Air Lines
03 Mar 2001, Boeing 737-400, HS-TDC, Thai Airways


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8319 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 32344 times:

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 8):
The hot gases in the fuel tank thing is baloney. It never happened before that on a 747 and it didn't happen in the 6 or so years afterwards before implementation of an unnecessary inerting system.

Theories aside, being related to a 747 captain I can tell you that Boeing had a long standing warning to 747 operators about this exact risk with the center fuel tank. So that explains why this didn't happen before or after.


User currently offlineCairnterriAIR From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 32307 times:

Sadly, there are conspiracy theories for every major disaster....even the Sandy Hook tragedy and the Boston Marathon bombings are being debated by various folks. In my honest opinion, when these theories are brought up the only thing that is being accomplished is that the people lost, as well as their families... are being disrespected. Fox News and any other "journalist" or hard right of center individual should be ashamed of themselves and find more constructive and positive things to concern themselves with.

User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7702 posts, RR: 21
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 32200 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 8):
The hot gases in the fuel tank thing is baloney. It never happened before that on a 747 and it didn't happen in the 6 or so years afterwards before implementation of an unnecessary inerting system.

By that specious reasoning no one-off malfunction or misfortune that brought down a jet could ever be genuine, even though we know that's not actually the case. How many Concorde crashes were there in the years prior to the Air France crash?



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinedelta777jet From Germany, joined Jun 2000, 1259 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 32012 times:

Finally ! Everybody at TWA believed it was shot down! Now they only must admit it!


Fly easyJet
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 8
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 32984 times:

Quoting reality (Reply 10):
Conspiracy theorists NEVER give up. Facts will never ever convince them. Common sense never prevails.

Well I don´t know if it was an accident or shoot down, but correct me if I am wrong.

DIdn´t the guy who was trying to expose the shoot down, stole fabric from the wreckage and test it positive for rocket fuel residues and he went to JAIL, because of his deniel of exposing his sources? My memory might be rusty, but I remember someone went to jail because he had a different version and proofs.

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 32794 times:

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 30):
I remember someone went to jail because he had a different version and proofs.

I don't think that's very likely. If someone went to prison it'd have to be for something more than just having a differing opinion.


User currently offlineRDUDDJI From Lesotho, joined Jun 2004, 1472 posts, RR: 3
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 32389 times:

Quoting CairnterriAIR (Reply 26):
Fox News and any other "journalist" or hard right of center individual should be ashamed of themselves and find more constructive and positive things to concern themselves with.

Actually, in the US, the left is much more likely to come up with and promote "conspiracy theories" than the right.

Google "9/11 conspiracy theories" and see what I mean.



Sometimes we don't realize the good times when we're in them
User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3231 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 32298 times:

I personally enjoy a good "What if . . ." , as long as it is well made, thought provoking and respectful.
Can't comment further until I've seen it.



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 32171 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 31):

Some couple, hubby and wife diid go to prison and there is a documentary in which they are featured, they went in for no other reason than whats stated.

Both the theories seem valid, the NTSB one with its many might have been caused by statements, and the conspiracy theory/eye witness ones too.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 31325 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 34):
they went in for no other reason than whats stated.

Only for expressing a differing opinion? Are you sure there was nothing wrong with the way they went about it?


User currently offlinePanAm1971 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 30843 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 25):
Theories aside, being related to a 747 captain I can tell you that Boeing had a long standing warning to 747 operators about this exact risk with the center fuel tank. So that explains why this didn't happen before or after.

A very brave attempt at sanity Sir. However, I'm afraid this tinfoil hat palooza WILL roll on... logic be damned.


User currently onlineFlaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1269 posts, RR: 4
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 30874 times:

I have read the reports and am technically competent. There are a number of things that could or might have happened. Ive never been a conspiracy theorist but......In light of the past few weeks of exposed corruption (Benghazi, IRS, NSA, etc.) I have begun to believe that just about anything is possible. Americans are just now beginning to see the depths of corruption and abuse in the hallways of our government. Im not pointing any fingers or attempting to promote any agenda or specific cover up. Im just stating that in light of recent revelations we as a society should step back and take a very serious look at our leadership and what they have done to us.

In hind sight TW 800 looks more and more like the rest of the questionable and unbelievable garbage the government has been thrusting down our throats. I would like to believe that it was a mechanical failure and it might in fact have been. Considering the sources of that conclusion however after 17 years I now have my doubts. Deep down our government is just another corrupt banana republic, albeit a giant and powerful one. Could this just be another example?


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 30312 times:

Quoting milesrich (Reply 1):
And Fox News broke the story

Actually No...CNN and News 12 Long Island did. Keep the politics out of it for once please...it is boring.


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 30168 times:

Quoting reality (Reply 10):
Conspiracy theorists NEVER give up. Facts will never ever convince them. Common sense never prevails

Hey, Sh-t happens as did on the night of 7.17.96...I suppose 9/11 is a conspiracy theory event as well...


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 30006 times:

I dunno.

These articles look a lot like advertising for the show, not journalism.

Besides, if the thing was hit by a rocket, why do people believe for a second that such an external explosion would shear the nose off the plane allowing the rest of the plane to continue flying? Think about that for a second, and see if you can convince yourself that that is not a ridiculous notion.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2433 posts, RR: 5
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 29986 times:

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 20):
Wasn't there a Thai B737 which exploded on the tarmac at BKK?

   IIRC, there were also some KC-135's that suffered the same fate.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 23):
Seems easily disprovable. I'm surprised they didn't ground the 747 then, or ban all planes for that matter from flying on days where temps have reached 80 degrees. They're flying bombs! They must be going off like pop cans in Arizona after taking off! They must not have planes flying at all in the Middle East and Africa. Don't you think that if this was such a realistic possibility, they would have grounded the planes?
Quoting denverdanny (Reply 23):
I really think you should read what you wrote.

Think you should take your own advice here.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 23):
They were never able to replicate what happened.

IIRC, they in fact did. I just don't remember the details.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 23):
What about the silly story of the dog training exercise as an excuse for why residue was found on seats?

Eh, because that's what happened? It's done at virtually every major airport.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineboacvc10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 29865 times:

Quoting Flaps (Reply 37):
Deep down our government is just another corrupt banana republic, albeit a giant and powerful one. Could this just be another example?

Umm, airliners.net shouldn't be a discussion forum for US security policy ... ?



Up, up and Away!
User currently offline4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 3013 posts, RR: 9
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 29794 times:

Quoting Flaps (Reply 37):
Im not pointing any fingers or attempting to promote any agenda or specific cover up

Except that this is just about the only sentence in your post that wasn't actively pointing fingers or attempting to promote an agenda or specific cover up.
The whole "I'm not saying, I'm just saying..." drives me nuts. If you really believe in something, say it and stand behind it.
So I'll declare that the United DC10 at Sioux City was a missile because, well, no other DC10s had that happen before or after. Same with the DC10 that suddenly had an engine depart the wing in Chicago. No other examples, so clearly a missile right? And wikileaks shows that there is corruption in the world so it's obviously corrupt government shooting down a passenger jet and thrusting down an impossible theory down our throats. Oh, and I almost forgot to say that my side is smart and the other is naive, ignorant, or stupid. It is.
/sarc



Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 29781 times:

Quoting Flaps (Reply 37):
In light of the past few weeks of exposed corruption

Exactly... exposed.

Quoting Flaps (Reply 37):
Americans are just now beginning to see the depths of corruption and abuse in the hallways of our government.

Really? No corruption scandals exposed in the past, before this "recent trend"?


User currently offlinesunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 776 posts, RR: 14
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 29786 times:

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 8):
Covering up TWA 800 was the wrong thing for the country.

As you say, the tank explosion cause is indeterminate, but you are contradicting yourself when you say there was a cover-up. A "cover-up" implies that someone actually knows what happened.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 12):
My problem with the report is the physics of a centre tank explosion that sheers off the front of the aircraft but allows the wing box to retain sufficient integrity for the plane to fly on straight and level for several minutes.

And you have a problem with this because you designed the 747 and know exactly what happened? Remember, truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.

Quoting delta777jet (Reply 28):
Finally ! Everybody at TWA believed it was shot down! Now they only must admit it!

People believe in all kinds of crap - but what basis in fact is that belief based on?


There are so many arm-chair engineers and physicists out there... too funny. The bottom line is that if you don't understand something... you don't understand it! It doesn't mean that someone is covering up something or that you have to come up with an uninformed conclusion.

Sunil


User currently offline0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 29661 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 39):
These articles look a lot like advertising for the show, not journalism.

I don't think any of them claimed to be investigative jorunalism. They're simply stating that these investiagors have come fordward and there going to be a show on *whateverchannel* coming up soon stating their full story.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):
Supposedly they don't claim to know for sure, but they don't agree with the official cause.

From what I hear all they are going to say is that their is evidence showing the explosion was outside of the aircraft, not inside of it. And, they will not say that it was a missle.



"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
User currently offlinefutureatp From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 221 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 29651 times:

When I first saw this last night my first reaction was; I wonder if there are flyable 747100s/200s around that can be had for cheap, to attempt to recreate a center tank explosion and a shoot down. It would take govt cooperation to recreate the shoot down. So unless we can talk a foreign govt to cooperate in shooting down an airplane, it would be hard to remove bias from this. I suppose the Russians could be talked into it for a price. That is just what I thought. It seems the most plausible way to settle this for me.

Probably seems far fetched but a 727 was intentionally crashed in Mexico not long ago.......


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 29520 times:

I think a lot of folks need to go back and watch from the 38 minute mark of this article for why the NTSB reached their conclusions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB1dUfVfoG4

There was no support from an exterior explosion. And why would an exterior Missle hit a climbing 747 at 400 + Knots in the center of the belly instead of hitting an engine and ripping the wing?



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 29570 times:

I had a flying buddy friend who was the #2 man in the news department at a CBS television station at the time who told me a couple of years after the event that he knew some people who had first-hand knowledge that TWA 800 was shot down by a missile; they knew exactly what kind of missile, and where it came from. He did not tell me the details (I'm not sure he had them) but he did tell me that there were a whole bunch of parts in a separate hangar from the official hangar. He did not go into many details; but he was a serious man-not a conspiracy buff, and had a serious job where he would have had a lot of knowledge that most of us don't. At the same time I had a friend who was an ex-PA 747 pilot who absolutely believed it was a center tank explosion-he said the center tank would have been almost empty for that flight, but they would have taken off on it and the explosion occurred just about when they would have switched away from it. From what I have read of eyewitness accounts I am inclined to believe the missile. Being an engineer and physicist I do not buy the official explanation on how the plane swooped up after having the front section blown off. With the CG disrupted so dramatically it would have immediately stalled and plummeted down, not up.

[Edited 2013-06-19 07:45:38]


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1916 posts, RR: 21
Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 28583 times:

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 22):
I'm surprised they didn't ground the 747 then, or ban all planes for that matter from flying on days where temps have reached 80 degrees

Uh you better believe that any reputable airlines still operating the 747 classics at the time were inspecting the wiring in the fuel tanks after TW800. Secondly, it wasn't simply the fact that there were fuel vapors that brought down the plane, accidents are always a serious of unfortunate events that happen align in an unfortunate way.


Quoting denverdanny (Reply 22):
They're flying bombs! They must be going off like pop cans in Arizona after taking off!

What are you looking for? They've since tested this, exposed a center tank with the exact amount of fuel flight 800 had to the conditions it was exposed to, end result were flammable fuel vapors, you can't argue with facts: fuel vapor was present, fuel vapor is flammable.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 22):
In the entire history of the 747, we never once had another incident like this. If it can so easily happen, I find that incredible.

That's some real stellar logic there.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 22):
Just the "presence of vaporized jet fuel," as you say, means nothing. At what temperatures and what voltage? Where did the necessary voltage come from? I don't think there's enough voltage on the plane to cause this kind of accident.


They've established that it's plausible the center tank was at a high enough temperature and that arcing from the wiring would have produced voltage great enough to generate sufficient sparks for ignition.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 22):
They were never able to replicate what happened. They admit that in the report.

Perhaps, but they certainly have since 1996, do a little youtube searching.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 22):
You don't see any reason? How about embarrassment, or loss of faith in government, or scandal, or careers, or fear of court cases and trials?

Maybe, but over the past couple months I find it very hard to believe our government is all of a sudden so incredibly tight-lipped and adept at keeping such major secrets.


User currently offlineb2319 From China, joined Jan 2013, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 28462 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 39):
Besides, if the thing was hit by a rocket, why do people believe for a second that such an external explosion would shear the nose off the plane allowing the rest of the plane to continue flying?

Being very far from the emotion, the data, and the facts:

Have you ever played pool?

The angle of impact, playing pool, greatly influences the destruction/distortion/damage; surely somewhat comparable to an aircraft strike event, less compressible and incompressible effects.

In other words, I strike your aircraft at 90 degrees: you do down.

I strike at 5 at middle; 17 at fuel tank:you can carry on......

For the record: I make a point of not watching Fox, in any forms.  

Regards

B-2319


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 28328 times:

"The special features six former members of the official crash investigation breaking their silence to refute the officially proposed cause of the jetliner’s demise and reveal how the investigation was systematically undermined."

http://press.epixhd.com/programming/twa-flight-800/

The above is disturbing. Let's see "how the investigation was systematically undermined" according to the investigators.

"A group of whistle-blowers, including a number of aviation experts, have come forward in a new documentary to claim that the official explanation for the crash of TWA Flight 800 was wrong and a gas tank explosion did not bring down the flight off the coast of Long Island 17 years ago.

However, the six whistle-blowers, all part of the original investigation team, stopped short of saying the plane was shot down."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/18...in-new-documentary-claim-original/

S**t reporting in my view. "...stopped short of saying the plane was shot down" suggests the investigators thought the aircraft had been shot down. Unless they said they thought the aircraft had been shot down the wording is misleading. They could have thought of several causes that might have led to the aircraft exploding (or none).


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 28081 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
but you think that a Navy ship could shoot down an airliner just off the coast of the country's largest city, not to mention home to tons of media, and keep it all covered up for 17 years?

Yes I do. The mainstream media has been covering up for the inept governments of the US since Vietnam was made into a TV war. It is a conspiracy man...



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5523 posts, RR: 8
Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 27897 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 39):
Besides, if the thing was hit by a rocket, why do people believe for a second that such an external explosion would shear the nose off the plane allowing the rest of the plane to continue flying? Think about that for a second, and see if you can convince yourself that that is not a ridiculous notion.

Here is my one question and contribution to the "missile" proponents:

Exactly what missile of that time did this? In reviewing missile targeting systems most do not target the center body of an object, those that do are air-to-air or active targeting systems that would have required a continuous radar lock on the target from a ground source (a big one). To my knowledge those that would/could have been used would seek heat as that is the most reliable targeting point, and that means an engine or wing, not center of the belly.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1576 posts, RR: 3
Reply 50, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 27795 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 47):

There was no support from an exterior explosion. And why would an exterior Missle hit a climbing 747 at 400 Knots in the center of the belly instead of hitting an engine and ripping the wing?

Because it was radar guided not heat seeking, it would want to hit the center of the target.

Quoting tugger (Reply 54):

Exactly what missile of that time did this? In reviewing missile targeting systems most do not target the center body of an object, those that do are air-to-air or active targeting systems that would have required a continuous radar lock on the target from a ground source (a big one). To my knowledge those that would/could have been used would seek heat as that is the most reliable targeting point, and that means an engine or wing, not center of the belly.

The US Navy has a few self guided radar homing missiles...



BV
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5523 posts, RR: 8
Reply 51, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 27217 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 50):
The US Navy has a few self guided radar homing missiles...

Yes, but exactly which ones are you referring to? Let's narrow this down. Exactly what missile would do this? After that we can track which ships have the missile, audit their logs and missile inventory. And track the production numbers of every missile. The data is there.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 52, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 26743 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 39):
Think about that for a second

It only requires a second to think about...

Quoting D L X (Reply 39):
continue flying

And who said, "it continued flying?"...the CIA?. So as you put it, think about it...An aerodynamically clean airframe climbing through 13,700 ft experiences an explosion of some sort causing the complete separation of section 41. The pressure differential aside from the explosion is enough to cause FOD to be ingested in at least the #2 and #3 inboard power plants resulting in loss of power. Now consider the 20' wide X 30' high gaping hole exposed to the slipstream. The burbling air washing out the tail feather effectiveness, loss of power and severe negative influence to the aerodynamics, not to mention the radical CG shift. Can anyone that is aviation savvy ever agree with the CIA cartoon? By the way...EMT's found human remains inside the power plants so FOD ingestion during this event prior to hitting the water is a fact.
Remember the recent video 747-400 freighter in climb configuration at full power with the cargo shift...didn't climb any three thousand feet even with a clean intact airframe. What does the CIA/FBI know about aerodynamics anyway?

It will be interesting to see what pans out from this show if it is in fact not blocked from airing...Those that tout all this as conspiracy bunk are the same that have to interject left wing/ right wing stuff. Not necessary. The fact remains that the aircraft crashed, all perished, Egypt Air 767 crashed, no survivors, Swissair 111 crashed, no survivors, AA 587 crashed, no survivors. Coincidentally, all in the same air corridor, all blamed on MX issue yet never duplicated anywhere else. The Egypt Air 767 was initially blamed on runaway trim however other circumstances were found to be the blame, who can say. Swissair blamed on a galley fire. AA 587 blamed on pilots over use of rudder which is bunk. Incidents occur in aviation all the time and do not have to be associated with conspiracies. Government cover ups are everyday part of running this country. Look at Benghazi, NSA, AP, Fast and furious...need I say more.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1576 posts, RR: 3
Reply 53, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 26618 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 51):
Yes, but exactly which ones are you referring to? Let's narrow this down. Exactly what missile would do this? After that we can track which ships have the missile, audit their logs and missile inventory. And track the production numbers of every missile. The data is there.

Its already been done, a specific USN vessel was fingered as being in the area performing an exercise at the time, obviously you will have no luck with finding out the missile inventory but I believe the alleged culprit would be a SM-2 missile. There would have been 1000's produced and fired over the last 30 odd years.



BV
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5523 posts, RR: 8
Reply 54, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 26285 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 14):
Strong yes but it has to be to keep the wings from folding up due to the tons of lift applied to them, structures of this type (should) only retain their strength as long as they remain intact but the front of the wing box was found at the beginning of the debris path, so in theory the aircraft should not have retained the ability to fly which according to the report it did.

If the wingbox "continued on" it would of course be at the beginning of the debris field (or the end of it depending on your point of view).

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 53):
Its already been done, a specific USN vessel was fingered as being in the area performing an exercise at the time, obviously you will have no luck with finding out the missile inventory but I believe the alleged culprit would be a SM-2 missile. There would have been 1000's produced and fired over the last 30 odd years.

That is a 15' missile, it is big enough to leave a lot of debris, so you are saying that all the debris that was found by the civilian search teams was also covered up? Also it requires an active track from ship guidance for initial targeting and can accept course correction and guidance from it base which allows its track to be terminated. So the ship just watched it go on its merry way and did nothing (in addition to the debris cover up, and the logs and the personnel on board....)?

Yep, that happened for sure....

Tugg

[Edited 2013-06-19 09:48:04]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 55, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 26062 times:

Quoting 0NEWAIR0 (Reply 41):
I don't think any of them claimed to be investigative jorunalism.

Journalism is assumed when it's a journalistic source like Fox News or CNN.

Oh. I just spotted my error.  
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 44):
With the CG disrupted so dramatically it would have immediately stalled and plummeted down, not up.

Normally, I would defer to your pilot wisdom, but I cannot see a plane travelling well above stall speed immediately stalling, even accounting for the probability that the stall speed would rise up with the configuration change and loss of aerodynamics. More likely is that in an instant, with all that forward counterweight suddenly gone, the rest of the plane would pitch up with the engines still running at climb thrust. It's going to go up. Yes, it is also going to stall, but at this point, 800 was probably acting ballistically with an airfoil influence, as opposed to like an airfoil with a ballistic influence.

All in all, the NTSB explanation for the trajectory of the flight is more than plausible.

Quoting b2319 (Reply 46):
In other words, I strike your aircraft at 90 degrees: you do down.

I strike at 5 at middle; 17 at fuel tank:you can carry on......

I cannot agree. An external explosion would cause a concave impact on the frame. It is not a shearing force, but rather a mashing force. Even if the alleged rocket hit 800 on the nose, the nose would have been MASHED, not sheared off.

The shearing strongly suggests an internal explosion, not an external one.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 52):
Remember the recent video 747-400 freighter in climb configuration at full power with the cargo shift...didn't climb any three thousand feet even with a clean intact airframe.

apples and oranges. TW800 was 12 minutes into flight. How fast do you think it was going? Well above stall speed. The Afghan 747F that crashed last month has just departed the runway. How fast do you think it was going? Pretty close to stall speed.



ANYWAY, here's what I think is a much better article than the FOX or CNN articles:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11953...ht-800.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1576 posts, RR: 3
Reply 56, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 25878 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 54):
That is a 15" missile, it is big enough to leave a lot of debris, so you are saying that all the debris that was found by the civilian search teams was also covered up?

Most of the debris were recovered by the USN, even the NYPD were told to leave the area.

OK, let me tape a couple of tinfoil hats together here... These are new hats, I haven't seen this theory around even on the internets..

Several USN vessels were in the area including allegedly a new SSBN on sea trials, also there was a co-operative navy exercise going on. Navies have experimented with things called SLAM's (Submarine-Launched Air Missile) from time to time but there are obvious problems with the concept, also obvious advantages like the ability to take out a harassing anti submarine aircraft by surprise that would be pretty useful.

So, sub looses one off by accident or design shooting more or less blind (clearly a sub would have targeting issues) and unfortunately catches TWA-800.

Would the US Govt cover up an accident that had to do with its ballistic submarine fleet capabilities? Absolutely, without question. Tell the Russians that they could shoot down their Anti submarine aircraft? Not a chance. Covering it up would be an easy thing to do too as very few of the participants of the exercise would even know it was there and submarines ar the most secret boats in the fleet

The internets alleged that USS Wyoming was in the SSBN in the area on sea trials and that her Captain and XO were relieved of duty shortly after and that its commissioning was delayed.

Where's the number for Fox News...

[Edited 2013-06-19 10:15:37]

[Edited 2013-06-19 10:18:26]


BV
User currently offlinedsuairptman From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 25712 times:

It's about time someone steped up and cried foul over the offical findings. Way too much poltical intrique going on the US at the time of that tragedy to not question foul play/inside job motives.


GEAUX SAINTS!
User currently offlinepiedmont727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 25420 times:

Well they have good reason to speculate I mean from what I heard the thing lit up like wood soaked in gasoline , and I was always curious how a fuel tank explosion took out the cockpit

User currently offlineidlewildchild From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 25374 times:

I remember that day like it was yesterday. I also remember, within minutes of it happening, two military pilots being interviewed and saying they were doing drills, in coordination with a submarine, in the area. We never saw them again. I was convinced then, and am still convinced, it was friendly fire from a military exercise gone wrong that brought that plane down.

It's sad it also cost TWA its life and Boeing a bit of reputation around the 747. I pray the truth finally airs out. I wonder if the cover up, which is what is being alleged, goes up to the Presidential level. The incident happened under Clinton but I believe the investigation finished under Bush II.


User currently offlinepenguins From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 25028 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 23):

I am not saying that the incident did not occur because it had never happened before but, there was an incident involving Concorde in 1979 that was an exact replica of what happened in 2000.

In 1981, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board reported four "potentially catastrophic" incidents resulting from blown out tires during Concorde takeoffs between June 1979 and February 1981.

The most serious occurred in June 1979 at Dulles airport outside Washington, D.C.

As a Concorde was taking off, two tires on the main left landing gear blew out and tire debris and wheel shrapnel damaged the No. 2 engine and punctured three fuel tanks. A large hole was torn in the wing.

The plane returned to the airport for an emergency landing with fuel pouring from the wing. Design modifications were made after the incident, along with an NTSB recommendation that landing gear not be retracted if a blowout occurs and that any plane suffering a blowout immediately return for an emergency landing at the airport where it took off.

The plane was spared from a horrible fate because an aviation consultant noticed the hole before the plane could go supersonic. They were also lucky hydraulics weren't severed.


User currently offlinerichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4248 posts, RR: 6
Reply 61, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 25012 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):
At the time I felt there was something we were not being told, as even if it had been a bomb or missile, why would the next action to be to take those steps?

The final conclusion may be accurate, but at the time of the accident, the administration believed it to be terrorism.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
TWA 800 went down about a year after the discovery of the Bojinka plot and just before the Atlanta Olympics, so there was pretty good reason to be even more suspicious of foul play than other accidents.

Exactly, BMI727. Because in the hours and days after the crash, there was no real way of knowing what had actually happened. Closing curbside check-in and taking other measures against potential terrorism was very prudent given the circumstances. So I don't think you can draw any correlation between the government response in the immediate aftermath of the crash and what actually brought down the aircraft.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 7):
One oft repeated misinformation tidbit is that "it was a hot day" that day. No, it really wasn't. Look at the historical record. It

Um, it was a hot day. I remember it well. I was living in CT at the time and recall it was an oppressively hot and humid day. Highs were in the mid-90s, humidity was through the roof, and as evening time came there was welcome relief as the temperature started dropping into the 80s. Maybe there was some breeze at JFK that I didn't have in "upstate" Connecticut, but I can tell you this was a dog of a day. Which is to say that the hazy, steamy weather was quite normal for a summer day - we probably get 5-10 days like that every summer!

Quoting brilondon (Reply 48):
Yes I do. The mainstream media has been covering up for the inept governments of the US since Vietnam was made into a TV war. It is a conspiracy man...

With all due respect, this sounds a lot like backing a conspiracy just for sake of being anti-government.
I don't know what the real answer is here but these new allegations sound like they are beating the same old drum. Whether or not there is any merit to that beating maybe up to some interpretation but there are two things that stick out to me about the "missile theory":

1. Eyewitnesses out on boats and along LI beaches claim to have seen a missile before the explosion
2. The missile would have presumably come from a US Navy ship in the area

OK - so we all know that eyewitness testimony is generally unreliable but there were a lot of people who claim to have seen something unusual that evening in the seconds before the horrific explosion. To be honest, I never really felt comfortable with the official claims that what everybody saw was after the explosion of TWA 800 but I can accept that personal accounts can be inaccurate. For various reasons, sometimes they can be wildly inaccurate and just plain false. This was, unfortunately, in the days before digital cameras and cellphone cameras, so there is very little proof to backup personal testimony from these eyewitnesses.

The second point is that if it was a missile, it must have been friendly fire and been accidentally launched from a naval ship. But this implies that there is a whole ship full of seamen out there who have never once come forward and said their ship launched a missile that night. Are they under threat of death? Has our country fallen that far into conspiracy that not one person, perhaps out of dozens, has not dared to come forward 17 years after TWA 800 came down? Are these naval officers so bound by honor that they would rather pledge allegiance to the navy than to the 230 familes of those that were lost?

I guess when I weigh the two sides, I have to fall back on the official explanation. If nothing else, it is plausible. The aircraft operating TWA 800 was quite old, and the sequence of events leading up to the crash make sense as far as the center fuel tank is concerned. It is also not very surprising that many key parts of the fuel tank were never found...the ocean does not give up its secrets easily!

If there was a coverup in any way, I guess the government has no choice but to stick besides its official explanation now. Those who want to believe in the missile theory will probably always believe it but, even as these new allegations come forward, there is still no real proof of a conspiracy or coverup. If a special FBI team came and tampered with evidence, or even removed evidence from the hangar where N93119 was being rebuilt, it's just heresay and may bolster peoples' claims but unfortunately does not provide real facts.

Maybe it is easier, safer and simpler to believe the official explanation. Call me naive, but until irrefutable evidence comes to light that TWA 800 was brought down by anything other than an internal fuel tank explosion, I have to go with the expert analysis.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 13):
RIP Marcel Dadi my twin brother and best friend lost on board TWA800

When talking about the facts or theories, it is almost easy to forget there were 230 lives lost that day. And being an aviation forum, it stands to reason that there were many direct connections to the human tragedy that was TWA 800. I recall one poster discussing how he used to live in the same condo complex as the Captain of that ill-fated flight and would often say a passing "hello" to him. As for your twin brother, MC, I am extremely sorry for your loss. I am sure it is something you never quite past.



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offlineKBOS From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 25168 times:

Quoting idlewildchild (Reply 59):
I remember that day like it was yesterday. I also remember, within minutes of it happening, two military pilots being interviewed and saying they were doing drills, in coordination with a submarine, in the area. We never saw them again. I was convinced then, and am still convinced, it was friendly fire from a military exercise gone wrong that brought that plane down.

I remember that as well. 2 A-10 pilots from the New Jersey Air National Guard were on CNN shortly after the explosion. Never saw or heard from them again either.



I don't care if the sun don't shine, I do my drinkin in the evening time when I'm in Rhode Island
User currently offlinemd80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 63, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 24689 times:

Quoting reality (Reply 8):
Conspiracy theorists NEVER give up. Facts will never ever convince them. Common sense never prevails.

Good thing they didn't give up on the NSA all-encompassing spy story they've been droning (no pun intended) on about for 15 years, huh? BTW, I like your Orwellian handle there ... "reality"   

As far as TWA 800, I have always believed it was anything BUT a fuel tank explosion, since the fuel tanks are vented specifically to prevent the accumulation of fuel vapors as the levels of liquid fuel decreases in them. Add to that the fact that jet fuel is the -least- flammable of any fuel used to propel a mass-transit vehicle, with the exception of diesel fuel perhaps.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5410 posts, RR: 4
Reply 64, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 24542 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
There are some curious facts, but in the end, it seems way more of a stretch to believe any of the conspiracies I've heard than it is to believe the official story. Most conspiracy theories I've seen are assumptions built on assumptions built on assumptions.

All of the above is true here, and true of conspiracy theories in general. There are always curious facts. Weird coincidences happen every day. It's much more believable to attribute them to weird coincidence than to an elaborate, perfectly maintained conspiracy requiring the silence of every single one of hundreds or even thousands of people.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 16):
People are still questioning the moon landings...of course this will never be settled for everybody.

   And the people continuing to obsess over this are about as silly as the people questioning the moon landings.

Quoting D L X (Reply 35):
These articles look a lot like advertising for the show, not journalism.

  


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 65, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 24486 times:

Quoting penguins (Reply 60):
there was an incident involving Concorde in 1979 that was an exact replica of what happened in 2000.

   Superficially it might seem that way but the type of event you describe hadn't happened for quite some time before 2000 and was very different from what happened at CDG. What happened at CDG in 2000 was unique... and yet it happened.

Quoting richierich (Reply 61):
Call me naive, but until irrefutable evidence comes to light that TWA 800 was brought down by anything other than an internal fuel tank explosion, I have to go with the expert analysis.

Add me to that group.


User currently offlinerobsaw From Canada, joined Dec 2008, 236 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 23805 times:

Amazing how such a thread degrades into the usual illogical conspiracy theory stuff. Reasonable and probable explanations are tossed-aside for the more exciting conspiracy theory. Arguments made twisting the probable and improbable due to basic lack of understanding of physics, fuel chemistry, and electricity (see totally flawed post regarding lack of "voltage" to induce a spark).

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 67, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 23760 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 65):
  Superficially it might seem that way but the type of event you describe hadn't happened for quite some time before 2000 and was very different from what happened at CDG. What happened at CDG in 2000 was unique... and yet it happened.

How was it different?

Not to get off topic, but dismissing it as "very different" is unsupported and misplaced. What it exposed was that Concorde, with her higher-than-average takeoff speed and delta wing was susceptible to a fuel tank rupture if a tire blew on takeoff. The IAD incident caused a redesign of the tires, but not a redesign of the wing tanks. The CDG tires burst anyway, and caused the same kind of damage as the IAD tire burst had. Absent the catastrophic results in the latter case, the IAD and CDG incidents are very similar incidents.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 68, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 23906 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 55):
apples and oranges. TW800 was 12 minutes into flight. How fast do you think it was going? Well above stall speed. The Afghan 747F that crashed last month has just departed the runway. How fast do you think it was going? Pretty close to stall speed.

TWA 800, about 300 MPH plus or minus. 747F, 225 plus or minus before cg shift.
TWA 800 several compromised aerodynamic vehicle...
747F intact clean aerodynamic airframe...So my guess is the airframe N93119 did not fair much better ascending after the event than the Freighter did. Personal friend of mine flying his PA28 direct at N93119 at the time of the explosion stated officially, the airframe of N93119 stopped in the air before rolling and diving and did not climb at all. I'll believe a well seasoned pilot facing the event along with a chopper pilot that saw 24 rescue missions in Vietnam while having ordnance fired upon him before I'll believe a bunch of suits in a room in WA, D.C. Much of this will come out in time as the investigators retire and feel nothing to lose as they will want to clear their conscience eventually. That's just human nature.
This all has nothing to do with conspiracies, left wing pabulum or right wing ineptness. This was a monumental aviation event locally in back yard. If you want to support the conspiracy platform, talk to the families of the deceased, they will be @ Smith point Park the evening of 7.17.2013 @ 6:pm. Hear what they have to say...think you will surprised.
N93119 fuselage section


User currently offlinesuseJ772 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 816 posts, RR: 1
Reply 69, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 23726 times:

I am really not much of a conspiracy theorist. But I have and continue to have my doubts about TW800.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 24):
Theories aside, being related to a 747 captain I can tell you that Boeing had a long standing warning to 747 operators about this exact risk with the center fuel tank. So that explains why this didn't happen before or after.

This is the best argument against the conspiracy theory.

I never thought it was terrorists. No one ever accepted responsibility. And the "submarine" argument does seem a bit too much to cover up. But what I do think could be covered up is a "small Navy Seal-like team" firing a shoulder mounted rocket. It could have been an accident. It could have been on purpose for some unforeseen reason. I don't know. But it wouldn't be that hard of an idea to cover up.

Again, not that I believe this theory to be true, but I don't exactly believe the full report either.



Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 8
Reply 70, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 23675 times:

Quoting b2319 (Reply 46):
For the record: I make a point of not watching Fox, in any forms.  

Add me to your group !

The USA has shot down accidentally an A300, the USSR shoot down a 747, accidents happen.... in this case It MIGHT involved a domestic Airline, and local Forces, can you imagine the outrage if it was an accident...

*cleans tin foil hat* *put it on again*

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 71, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 23425 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 68):
Personal friend of mine flying his PA28 direct at N93119 at the time of the explosion stated officially, the airframe of N93119 stopped in the air before rolling and diving and did not climb at all.

Well clearly it STOPPED climbing, but also as clearly, it did climb to a certain altitude before it stopped. The aircraft reported that the CG shift happened while rotating, did it not?

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 68):
Much of this will come out in time as the investigators retire and feel nothing to lose as they will want to clear their conscience eventually. That's just human nature.

This is the mark of a conspiracy theorist -- the answer is always "in time, I will be shown to be correct." Never mind the fact that a 4 year investigation resulted in a different conclusion, and never mind that it has now been a total of 17 years since the accident. No, the answer is still waiting to be discovered. /sarc

And as for waiting for retirement to finally expose what is allegedly The Truth, that is the exact opposite of heroic action. If these guys felt so strongly that this investigation was a farce, a snowjob, and a coverup, they would have quit! They would not have waited 17 years working for a sham organization. They would have quit. I would have quit. You would have quit. they would have come forward with their evidence. Color me unimpressed.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 72, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 23379 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 67):
How was it different?

You must have missed the many discussions on the subject here. I assume you've never seen the accident report either. If I have time later on, I'll provide some links rather than derail this thread.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5222 posts, RR: 1
Reply 73, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 22408 times:

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 7):
Very basic for one. They never were able to explain what the initiation of the explosion was.

Well, Boeing doesn't know what caused fires in the lithium-ion batteries of the 787s, but the FAA approved changes for the battery compartment.

By the same token, in the Air Florida crash near DCA, the question was whether the pilots knew if the de-icing system had been turned on. If you listen to the pilots calling out the check-list, the response for de-icing system sounds almost like "onf". So, we don't know if the pilot called it on or off.


User currently offlinerichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4248 posts, RR: 6
Reply 74, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 22163 times:

Quoting KBOS (Reply 62):
I remember that as well. 2 A-10 pilots from the New Jersey Air National Guard were on CNN shortly after the explosion. Never saw or heard from them again either.

I am not doubting you. Surely this footage must exist somewhere...this was obviously before the days of YouTube and the mind-numbing amount of DVR being recorded, but there are some videotaped news clips on YT regarding TWA 800. I don't recall seeing CNN though...



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6088 posts, RR: 29
Reply 75, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 22092 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think this boils down to "do you believe the official report or not? There are some people who will never believe the official report because they (including me) think the government has something to hide.

There are those who believe the official report and nobody can change their minds. Some people keep saying "maybe some people will step forward and speak the truth. If you believe strongly in the official report, would you believe anyone or group of people who said they knew what really happened? You could have a sub full of sailors say they shot it down, and there are people here who would believe they are liars and that the official report is the absolute truth.

Quoting KBOS (Reply 62):
I remember that as well. 2 A-10 pilots from the New Jersey Air National Guard were on CNN shortly after the explosion. Never saw or heard from them again either.

I remember that. There was also a ANG helicopter pilot, who flew combat in Vietnam, who said he saw a missile. I remember watching that on TV.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 56):
Covering it up would be an easy thing to do too as very few of the participants of the exercise would even know it was there and submarines ar the most secret boats in the fleet

I bet most of the crew of the sub wouldn't even know if they were tracking an aircraft or not.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 56):
The internets alleged that USS Wyoming was in the SSBN in the area on sea trials and that her Captain and XO were relieved of duty shortly after and that its commissioning was delayed

It wouldn't surprise me if the sub was tracking the 747 as a missile drill and somebody accidentally armed and shot a missile and they couldn't disarm it in time.

Quoting tugger (Reply 54):
you are saying that all the debris that was found by the civilian search teams was also covered up?

I don't know if a civilian search team would know the difference between missile wreckage and 747 wreckage. If it was all just junk floating around or sunk in the water I doubt I could tell the difference. The search teams were looking for wreckage, their job wasn't to determine what the wreckage was. The experts who put the thing together back on land figured out what was what.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlinegaystudpilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 453 posts, RR: 7
Reply 76, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 21951 times:

[delete this post please]

[Edited 2013-06-19 14:15:49]

User currently offlineSXDFC From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2320 posts, RR: 21
Reply 77, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 21692 times:

I have been living on Long Island my whole life, and I remember this accident very well, although I was only 7 at the time, I remember seeing this on TV for days.. I was only 7 years old at the time this plane went down, but I remember seeing all the pictures on TV of 747s and other types of aircraft sparked my interest in aviation.

I remember watching on the TV, and some saying that they were looking into the possibility of someone putting a bomb on the plane when it was in ATH, does anyone remember reading or hearing about that?

Regardless of what brought down TW 800 it will not bring back the 230 people who were lost that day..  

Out of curiosity does anyone know what ever happened to the seats and the parts of the cockpit that were recovered? I recall seeing a picture of the full cockpit section being recovered..



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 78, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 21235 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 71):
Well clearly it STOPPED climbing, but also as clearly, it did climb to a certain altitude before it stopped

Neither climbed 3,000 ft.

Quoting D L X (Reply 71):
This is the mark of a conspiracy theorist

Then I would assume your an expert on this topic since your so easily compelled to label anyone that differs from your opinion...a conspiracy theorist. So do tell us what Really happened.

Quoting SXDFC (Reply 77):
Out of curiosity does anyone know what ever happened to the seats and the parts of the cockpit that were recovered? I recall seeing a picture of the full cockpit section being recovered..

Yes...much of the remaining debris was scrapped in a Scrap Yard in Medford Long Island. This included the wing planking, fuselage frame work, three JT-9 power plant cores, landing gear struts, engine pylons and just about all the rest other than the reconstructed assembly that is currently used for instruction down in Virginia. About 4 tons of her airframe is still submerged under the ocean.


User currently offlinecsavel From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1362 posts, RR: 4
Reply 79, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 20524 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 44):
I had a flying buddy friend who was the #2 man in the news department at a CBS television station at the time who told me a couple of years after the event that he knew some people who had first-hand knowledge that TWA 800 was shot down by a missile; they knew exactly what kind of missile, and where it came from. He did not tell me the details (I'm not sure he had them) but he did tell me that there were a whole bunch of parts in a separate hangar from the official hangar. He did not go into many details; but he was a serious man-not a conspiracy buff, and had a serious job where he would have had a lot of knowledge that most of us don't.

Why didn't he report it. I mean that could have been one of the biggest scoops of his career. Instantly propelling him to his own "investigative reporting" show on CNN! Most reporters would give their eye teeth to know people with first hand knowledge.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 48):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
but you think that a Navy ship could shoot down an airliner just off the coast of the country's largest city, not to mention home to tons of media, and keep it all covered up for 17 years?

Yes I do. The mainstream media has been covering up for the inept governments of the US since Vietnam was made into a TV war. It is a conspiracy man...
Quoting richierich (Reply 61):
The second point is that if it was a missile, it must have been friendly fire and been accidentally launched from a naval ship. But this implies that there is a whole ship full of seamen out there who have never once come forward and said their ship launched a missile that night. Are they under threat of death? Has our country fallen that far into conspiracy that not one person, perhaps out of dozens, has not dared to come forward 17 years after TWA 800 came down? Are these naval officers so bound by honor that they would rather pledge allegiance to the navy than to the 230 families of those that were lost?

This in a nutshell. I have no illusions about the evil and nefariousness of higher ups in govt. I also know, however, that people can't keep their big mouths shut for more than about ten minutes. I am finding it hard to believe that a cover up which would have to involve at least the poeple on the navy ship, other people in the navy who were monitoring the exercise, other ships in the area. Civilians who would've seen the missile on radar, and you have got a couple of hundred people keeping their mouths shut. Not one mouthed off in a bar to impress someone? Not one was filled with remorse? Not one wanted to sell story for a lot of money?

That is the biggest hurdle in conspiracy theories in general. The bigger the conspiracy, the more tongues wagging you have to worry about.



I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
User currently offlineaerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4681 posts, RR: 47
Reply 80, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 20301 times:

I may or may not have been involved in this study: http://www2.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/

Conspiracy my rear end!



"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
User currently offlineidlewildchild From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 20217 times:

Quoting KBOS (Reply 62):

Thx for confirmation. My best friend and I both remember those 2 a10 pilots. I bet they re emerge through this. So sad. These families deserve to know it was a horrific Accident with the government covering suits. Follow the $$$ folks.


User currently offlinedenverdanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 20128 times:

Quoting sunilgupta (Reply 40):
As you say, the tank explosion cause is indeterminate, but you are contradicting yourself when you say there was a cover-up. A "cover-up" implies that someone actually knows what happened.

I'd say when you have the CIA create a ridiculous video that does not follow what happened and present it as fact, that qualifies as a cover up of something.

Quoting richierich (Reply 61):
Um, it was a hot day. I remember it well. I was living in CT at the time and recall it was an oppressively hot and humid day. Highs were in the mid-90s, humidity was through the roof, and as evening time came there was welcome relief as the temperature started dropping into the 80s.

Do you think it's possible you confused the day with another, or just attached that memory to it? What part of Connecticut, so we can look up the historical record. Looking through it now for different cities in Connecticut, like New Haven and Bridgeport, they are coming up as 86 degree as a high. Windsor Locks--87. Keep in mind water has the ability to moderate temperatures. It is slow to warm up, and slow to cool down. San Fran is a good example. It's why when there's humidity, it takes long into the night for temps to cool down. Here in Denver, the temps drop after about 4 in the afternoon because we have no humidity. Being that JFK is on Long Island, I would think they would have more moderated temps being so close to the ocean.

You might want to be consistent with whether you want to go with historical records--facts, or personal experiences.

Quoting tugger (Reply 49):
To my knowledge those that would/could have been used would seek heat as that is the most reliable targeting point, and that means an engine or wing, not center of the belly.

So the heat from the air conditioning packs and the super heated center wing fuel tank were useful to explain how the explosion was possible, but now you want to dismiss them as possible heat targets...   Are you going to say that the plane had cooled down by then? Which argument are you going to make? I'm not necessarily arguing it was a missile versus a bomb, but you can't have it both ways.

[Edited 2013-06-19 15:50:34]

User currently offlineTVNWZ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 2374 posts, RR: 2
Reply 83, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 19979 times:

Quoting csavel (Reply 79):
This in a nutshell. I have no illusions about the evil and nefariousness of higher ups in govt. I also know, however, that people can't keep their big mouths shut for more than about ten minutes. I am finding it hard to believe that a cover up which would have to involve at least the poeple on the navy ship, other people in the navy who were monitoring the exercise, other ships in the area. Civilians who would've seen the missile on radar, and you have got a couple of hundred people keeping their mouths shut. Not one mouthed off in a bar to impress someone? Not one was filled with remorse? Not one wanted to sell story for a lot of money?

That is the biggest hurdle in conspiracy theories in general. The bigger the conspiracy, the more tongues wagging you have to worry about.

This. Even the guys that killed Osama could not keep quiet. And there was only a team of them. Really. Time to move on.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 27
Reply 84, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 19869 times:

Quoting richierich (Reply 61):
Because in the hours and days after the crash, there was no real way of knowing what had actually happened. Closing curbside check-in and taking other measures against potential terrorism was very prudent given the circumstances.

If the Navy shot down TWA 800, accidentally or otherwise, you wouldn't go in so hard with the FBI, so I don't know why conspiracy theorists cite that. If anything you'd do the opposite and go full Paterno with the case.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 85, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 19614 times:

There are so many radar stations, (and people), on the east coast that the chance of any missile going undetected is infinitesimally tiny. We've seen videos of hundreds of missiles being shot off of ships and subs at night and there is no mistaking the smoke and light show.

The chances of keeping all of the thousands of people who would know of such an incident quiet is, to not put too fine a point on it, laughable.

If there is any credence for any kind of sabotage being involved, it would have to be from a device on the plane itself...and that alone is enough to keep this story alive for the next millennium. Why bomb a plane and not take credit? Maybe it was an elaborate hit to snuff out just one passenger. Maybe an elaborate 'Airport' style insurance scam.

Dragging this out again isn't bringing any of those people back and if there are still doubters, there is no amount of evidence which would satisfy them. A smoking gun would be not quite hot enough, or the wrong kind of smoke or there would be a second smoking gun on a grassy submarine.

There are no new facts, or new witnesses. Anybody who had information and didn't either go to investigators or the media during the investigation, has absolutely no credibility at this point...zilch.

It's just more filler on another slow news day.



What the...?
User currently offlinemd80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 86, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 19504 times:

Can one truly trust an agency that would photoshop out a left wing separated from its wingbox in this (in)famous 767 ditching video? This is the official ditching video that accompanies the official accident report, that has also been modified to reflect the photoshopped video. Amazing really. You be the judge ... put your memory caps on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvtYtvd5x60


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 87, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 19353 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 3):
The reason its news is that six investigators claimed to be under a gag order but now are retired and don't care. Supposedly they don't claim to know for sure, but they don't agree with the official cause.

They should have spoken up at the time. Gutless.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 7):
The hot gases in the fuel tank thing is baloney. It never happened before that on a 747 and it didn't happen in the 6 or so years afterwards before implementation of an unnecessary inerting system. You can't ignite jet fuel in a tank like that--you have to have a very powerful ignition, such as a bomb or lightning.

Agreed. Funny how it's never happened to a 747 before or after this incident.

I'm waiting for the Oliver Stone movie.....



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5523 posts, RR: 8
Reply 88, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 19320 times:

Quoting idlewildchild (Reply 81):
Thx for confirmation. My best friend and I both remember those 2 a10 pilots. I bet they re emerge through this. So sad. These families deserve to know it was a horrific Accident with the government covering suits. Follow the $$$ folks.

There is simply no reason why "the government" would cover this up. Really. Yes there would be big liability and a lot of hearings and recriminations etc. But if the military is willing to admit it shot down an Iranian jet and crashed subs and done all the other stuff it has done, why would it risk EVERYTHING to cover this up? I mean this would be huge as it would be totally unnecessary to do it. The only people that would get hung would be the commanders on the ship and quite a few above them. There is no way there could be enough support to go cross agency etc. to cover it up. No way. Really, tell me why anyone would cover it up when it wouldn't harm them?

Imagine the political opportunity to anyone that knew of it, they could have destroyed entire federal organizations and been a hero for it.

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 83):
This. Even the guys that killed Osama could not keep quiet. And there was only a team of them. Really. Time to move on.

  

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinepenguins From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 18056 times:



Quoting yyz717 (Reply 87):
They should have spoken up at the time. Gutless

It is an opportune time to come out as a dissenter currently. The trust of the government is at an all time low. I think that is why they came out now.

[Edited 2013-06-19 18:17:35]

[Edited 2013-06-19 18:18:53]

User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 90, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 18105 times:

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 83):
This. Even the guys that killed Osama could not keep quiet. And there was only a team of them. Really. Time to move on.

Actually, it was one guy, and he was pissed because the stories were false. Who KNEW the truth, he didn't have to speculate on some other outcome.

Anyway, there are many things kept private for decades. Reagan's medical records for his last years in office regarding mental capacity, Obama's Harvard records (how did he get in based on his Oxy record, what nationality did he claim, etc.). When Presidents want something hidden, it will be hidden, and the next President will keep it hidden, lest someone expose that President when he leaves office. If Clinton chose to disguise this attack as an accident, nobody will expose the coverup. Maybe Dick Morris, who hates the Clintons now, but who will take him seriously?

Then there's the "greater good" coverups such as the mass expansion of the use of vaccines but the failure to report fatal vaccine reactions as what they are, instead calling the deaths "SIDS" and denying all investigative efforts to the contrary. After all, though the risk is very low of vaccine death, if 1/2 the SIDS deaths were renamed "Infant Vaccine Reaction Death" NOBODY would get vaccines for their children, and far more children would die of the diseases vaccines prevent than die of reaction to the vaccine, by factors of 100 to 1000 or more.

If the cover-up is for the "greater good" it's not hard to accomplish. Most will comply, and those who don't will be disparaged and discredited by those in power. And if the CIA is involved like with TWA 800, you can bet that they will find a way to make anyone who broke form at the time pay dearly.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 87):
They should have spoken up at the time. Gutless.

And lose their jobs and never work again? Speaking out at the time would not have saved any lives, so they thought. If they believed it was a missile attack, we haven't seen one since...

Now, if it was a shoebomber/bojinka situation, well, we have seen attempts since. The location of the explosion is right around the same location the bojinka test bomb was planted, and right around the location the shoe bomber was sitting.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2433 posts, RR: 5
Reply 91, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 17597 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 44):
With the CG disrupted so dramatically it would have immediately stalled and plummeted down, not up.

Go back and read about fundamental aerodynamics. Then get back to us....

Quoting brilondon (Reply 48):
It is a conspiracy man...

It always is man, ain't it?

 
Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 63):
Good thing they didn't give up on the NSA all-encompassing spy story they've been droning (no pun intended) on about for 15 years, huh?


Funny, until this broke, it was the first I heard about it. Give a mouse a cookie.........

Quoting robsaw (Reply 66):
Amazing how such a thread degrades into the usual illogical conspiracy theory stuff. Reasonable and probable explanations are tossed-aside for the more exciting conspiracy theory. Arguments made twisting the probable and improbable due to basic lack of understanding of physics, fuel chemistry, and electricity (see totally flawed post regarding lack of "voltage" to induce a spark).

Excellent post sir. It's amazing how the truth pisses off the conspiracists.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 82):
I'd say when you have the CIA create a ridiculous video that does not follow what happened and present it as fact, that qualifies as a cover up of something.

And of course, you know exactly what happened. If you do, I know there are a lot of people that would love to talk to you directly.

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 83):
Even the guys that killed Osama could not keep quiet. And there was only a team of them. Really. Time to move on.

   Nuff said.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinestltrojan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 17559 times:

All I can tell you is that my buddy was dating Jeffrey Erikson's daughter at the time. Our crew was all hanging out that night when it happened, she talked with her Mom just after the news hit and she was told that her Dad who was in London on official TWA business was immediately summonsed to the White House......

User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 93, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 17252 times:

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 82):
Looking through it now for different cities in Connecticut, like New Haven and Bridgeport, they are coming up as 86 degree as a high. Windsor Locks--87. Keep in mind water has the ability to moderate temperatures. It is slow to warm up, and slow to cool down. San Fran is a good example. It's why when there's humidity, it takes long into the night for temps to cool down. Here in Denver, the temps drop after about 4 in the afternoon because we have no humidity. Being that JFK is on Long Island, I would think they would have more moderated temps being so close to the ocean.

Not on the East Coast. Northeast summers, especially in July and August, are brutally humid. 86 degrees in New Haven or New York is not 86 degrees in Denver or Phoenix--it's worse, much worse because of how humid it is, making it feel at least 10 degrees warmer.

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 83):
Even the guys that killed Osama could not keep quiet. And there was only a team of them. Really. Time to move on.

Comment of the thread.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 90):
Obama's Harvard records (how did he get in based on his Oxy record, what nationality did he claim, etc.). When Presidents want something hidden

Guess what? You, as well as every other American citizen, have the privilege of keeping your educational records private as well. It's no conspiracy--it's the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 94, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 17178 times:

I just wonder how many here have actually been to the crash site of a heavy transport aircraft. The first impact to your senses is the rampant odor of jet fuel combined with the smell of charred aircraft structure, composites and human flesh. For myself I have been to the crash of eastern flight 66 back in June of 1975. The landscape was riddled with so much carnage I refused to use my cameras and departed the scene. I was not ready to see up close the real;ities I knew lain on the ground. My cousin was a first responder that tried to pull a woman away from burning wreckage, her arm came off in his hand. he lost it and quit the position.

Next...SAS Flight 901, Overrun into canal along rockaway blvd during downpour. Aircraft was scuttled but PAX/Crew OK. Still a strange site to see. Still have photos of that one.

Next...Avianca...was more of a successful miracle if you would. the only saving grace that night was the presence of no fuel on board and a 40 knot headwind. The site was still a mess. The wreckage remained in heap next to the Long Island Rail road in a yard and over several weeks was unguarded and ultimately was railed off to the scrap heap.

Next...AA587...we all know the results of that crash...total devastation, the presence of local law officials till the dangerous conditions had been addressed and cleaned up.

Next...Many local /fatal crashes, even witnessed a midair at an airshow @ FOK.

My point here is...In all the above accidents while local police presence existed at all the events, the press were free to go about their business for the most part unrestricted. There were no FBI agents and no culture of a crime scene was obvious as the normal routine used to be, first the NTSB investigates, and if foul play was involved or suspected then the Feds were called in to assist the NTSB. TWA 800 changed all that.

Within 20 minutes of hearing the news of the TWA 800 accident I was out @ KFOK, an airport I was extremely familiar with as I was a weekend regular there for 21 years flying for an operation. Soon after my arrival Feds were everywhere, this was peak vacation / tourism season on the east end. Where the heck did all these feds come from? They beat the NTSB, FAA and TWA reps out there. The press was kept at a far distance and as time went on, the distance grew larger. The environment was extremely controlled and so was Robert Francis, the lead NTSB investigator on this crash. Who sat on his head?...Jame Kallstrom from the FBI. I had never seen anything like this before. The next several days provided numerous news conferences where the obvious attempt at keeping Mr. Francis (NTSB) in the shadows by Mr. Kalstrom was evident. They both together looked about as fond of each other as the recent photo of Obama and Putin this past week. Eventually the press was granted permission to get out on a Coast Guard Ship, I was with...we were only allowed no closer than 1 mile to the Grapple and the Grasp, the 2 recovery ships. This was just a poor attempt to patronize the press but clearly an attempt @ keeping them far away at all times. This I have never seen at an aviation crash before.
TWA 800 was a different event, one that apparently had raised the interest of government officials before the event actually took place. Had they had prior knowledge of some pending threat to a European bound departing airliner that night, that week?...I tend to think so. I have flown that airspace and surfed those beaches for 30 years plus and know them well. I have never seen that many feds in any one place in such a short amount of time, so quickly. And I have never seen warships or Naval assets off Long Island Beaches but they were there that night, including the P-3 Orion w/ INOP Xpndr's?...Both of them?...C'mon


User currently offlineCWAFlyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 669 posts, RR: 1
Reply 95, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 17186 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 15):
You also realize that the plane had been at the gate and on the tarmac for much of the day through to the early evening, exposed to the highest temps of the day. I'm sure you're also aware of the fact that the air conditioning packs, which surround the center tank, had also been running for hours and get extremely hot.

The airplane sat for less than 4 hours after arriving from Athens. Not "much of the day". Did TWA typically leave the APU and packs running for hours like that when airplanes would arrive and then leave later? I ask that because I don't know.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1576 posts, RR: 3
Reply 96, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 17121 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 85):
We've seen videos of hundreds of missiles being shot off of ships and subs at night and there is no mistaking the smoke and light show.

The eyewitness problem, most are not believed because they have in the past proved less than perfect. It was approaching dusk not nighttime if I recall.

A bit of Googling shows that the Brits experimented with sub launched anti aircraft missiles as did the Russians, the French currently market a sub launched anti aircraft missile system fired through a standard torpedo tube, do we really believe that the USN did not experiment with them? Maybe someone should look through senate appropriations for Navy black projects..

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...s-anti-aircraft-self-defense-.html

For me the how and why has always been the problem with the shoot down theory, Navy cover up yes, possible but the USN isn't stupid and surface ships handle AAM's all the time they would surely have managed to destroy the missile, but if you introduce a ballistic missile submarine into the mix the accident becomes easier to understand and the cover up becomes almost mandatory. The sub might have been totally unaware there was a civilian aircraft up there, the sub could possibly have been in the wrong area or at the wrong time (fired the wrong tube?) only the people in the control center (10 people?) would be aware of what had happened, its even possible that they never knew that they had made a mistake and hit a civilian aircraft as they were submerged [fire, go deep, evade, return to port a week later]. Any admission by the US that a ballistic missile submarine shot down a civilian airliner would have easily been deemed a breach of national security, most everything to do with nuclear weapons is covered by national security.

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 83):
Even the guys that killed Osama could not keep quiet. And there was only a team of them. Really. Time to move on.

Submarine guys are not Army guys. Even air force guys can keep secrets for decades of things that fly in plain sight.

[Edited 2013-06-19 20:22:56]

[Edited 2013-06-19 20:26:23]


BV
User currently offlineyvphx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 256 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 17016 times:

Why would the former FAA investigators be under a gag order if this was nothing but an accident? This part is what is more intriguing to me about TWA 800.

User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 98, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 16990 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 94):
C'mon

Seriously?

Everyone from the moment this happened thought it was a terrorist act, but the facts didn't fit the conclusions.
Everyone remembered Lockerbie, and that is how the Feds treated it, as a terrorist attack at first.


IF anything they all learned what happened at Lockerbie and identified the source. They didn't find a bomb or any such device here, They found no high speed velocity items are anything else in that Fuel tank.

This is just a run at some money by some crazy promoters. Could there have been another source other than an Electrical Short, Maybe. However based on what happened to the Swiss Air flight, I am more inclined to believe a wiring issue got exposed at the wrong time.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13088 posts, RR: 12
Reply 99, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 16628 times:

The TWA 800 disaster is a classic example of number of social, political, economic, limits of investigations, time, place and potentially faulty observations can cause conterversery for years.
In the immediate moments after the TWA 800 disaster, terrorism was considered as the first possibility. That TWA had been a target of terrorism on USA based airliners and a long festering hatred of certain foreign groups against the USA a number of times by then, it not improbable. That led to the FBI being the lead investigator and putting the NTSB ability to investigation at a huge disadvantage and possibly distorting the ability to do an impartial investigation.
It is possible that with TWA 800, we had a disagreement among the investigators similar to the Arrow Air crash in Canada as to it's cause, that egos got into the way, or they saw the cause as something else they set their minds on.
That the best conclusion was due to a tiny electrical spark setting off fuel fumes is something many don't consider to be big enough to cause the loss of a large aircraft. Many figure it has to be something bigger like a 'missile', a bomb placed near the tank to go off shortly after takeoff and over water (like PA 103 was to do, as happened with 1 of 2 Air India flights), destroying any evidence. Of course just a dash panel display light bulb out, missing to set a guidance system properly, checking to make sure a flap setting is right and the pressurization system is set on, a pitot tube is not clogged, has led to major crashes.
Many also have great distrust of government, even to the point of believing that the military would do something as to cover up a shoot down of a commercial passenger a/c. At the time, there was fears of it was an act of terrorism, it could have destroyed not just TWA but many other airlines and the economics of the USA and other countries.
Of course Boeing and the fuel system makers would love to blame the disaster on anyone but themselves to save costs.

I do have issues with more conspiracy talk of such a crash. But this is a free country, with freedom of speech so there is little one can do but let them have their say.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 27
Reply 100, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 16372 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 99):
In the immediate moments after the TWA 800 disaster, terrorism was considered as the first possibility.

...which points out another hole in the story. If TWA was a legitimate terrorist attack, why cover it up? If Al Qaeda or somebody else bombed the plane, what does the government have to gain by hiding that?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineTUNisia From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1844 posts, RR: 5
Reply 101, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 16255 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
...which points out another hole in the story. If TWA was a legitimate terrorist attack, why cover it up? If Al Qaeda or somebody else bombed the plane, what does the government have to gain by hiding that?
Afterwards, not a one among them, either publicly or privately, challenged the video’s thesis that TWA Flight 800 had indeed been shot down. Offered instead were corroborating details, particularly from angry TWA pilots, about the money trail and the inexplicable Pentagon visits of then TWA CEO Jeff Erickson. Said one TWA pilot: “90 percent of us believe there was a government cover-up.”

http://mobile.wnd.com/2001/06/9765/



Someday the sun will shine down on me in some faraway place - Mahalia Jackson
User currently offlineSkydrol From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 969 posts, RR: 10
Reply 102, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 16175 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 94):
My point here is...In all the above accidents while local police presence existed at all the events, the press were free to go about their business for the most part unrestricted. There were no FBI agents and no culture of a crime scene was obvious as the normal routine used to be, first the NTSB investigates, and if foul play was involved or suspected then the Feds were called in to assist the NTSB. TWA 800 changed all that. Within 20 minutes of hearing the news of the TWA 800 accident I was out @ KFOK, an airport I was extremely familiar with as I was a weekend regular there for 21 years flying for an operation. Soon after my arrival Feds were everywhere, this was peak vacation / tourism season on the east end. Where the heck did all these feds come from? They beat the NTSB, FAA and TWA reps out there. The press was kept at a far distance and as time went on, the distance grew larger. The environment was extremely controlled and so was Robert Francis, the lead NTSB investigator on this crash. Who sat on his head?...Jame Kallstrom from the FBI. I had never seen anything like this before. The next several days provided numerous news conferences where the obvious attempt at keeping Mr. Francis (NTSB) in the shadows by Mr. Kalstrom was evident. They both together looked about as fond of each other as the recent photo of Obama and Putin this past week. Eventually the press was granted permission to get out on a Coast Guard Ship, I was with...we were only allowed no closer than 1 mile to the Grapple and the Grasp, the 2 recovery ships. This was just a poor attempt to patronize the press but clearly an attempt @ keeping them far away at all times. This I have never seen at an aviation crash before. TWA 800 was a different event, one that apparently had raised the interest of government officials before the event actually took place. Had they had prior knowledge of some pending threat to a European bound departing airliner that night, that week?...I tend to think so. I have flown that airspace and surfed those beaches for 30 years plus and know them well. I have never seen that many feds in any one place in such a short amount of time, so quickly. And I have never seen warships or Naval assets off Long Island Beaches but they were there that night, including the P-3 Orion w/ INOP Xpndr's?...Both of them?...C'mon

Absolutely fascinating post... I have always been willing to accept the conclusion that damaged fuel pump wiring could have ignited fuel vapors in the center tank of TWA800. But what Soon7X7 wrote is very compelling, and far from being conspiracy-theory based. Just facts of how strangely the investigation was handled compared with other incidents in the same jurisdiction.




LD4



∙ ---{--« ∙ ----{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ---{--« ∙ --{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ----{--« ∙
User currently offlineB747400ERF From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2013, 426 posts, RR: 1
Reply 103, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 16070 times:

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 27):
Actually, in the US, the left is much more likely to come up with and promote "conspiracy theories" than the right.

Google "9/11 conspiracy theories" and see what I mean.

Truthers are libertarians, they are not "the left" they are extremely right wing.


User currently offlineB747400ERF From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2013, 426 posts, RR: 1
Reply 104, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 16008 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 52):
The fact remains that the aircraft crashed, all perished, Egypt Air 767 crashed, no survivors, Swissair 111 crashed, no survivors, AA 587 crashed, no survivors. Coincidentally, all in the same air corridor, all blamed on MX issue yet never duplicated anywhere else. The Egypt Air 767 was initially blamed on runaway trim however other circumstances were found to be the blame, who can say. Swissair blamed on a galley fire. AA 587 blamed on pilots over use of rudder which is bunk. Incidents occur in aviation all the time and do not have to be associated with conspiracies. Government cover ups are everyday part of running this country. Look at Benghazi, NSA, AP, Fast and furious...need I say more.

What the hell am I reading?


User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1916 posts, RR: 21
Reply 105, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 15508 times:

Quoting CWAFlyer (Reply 95):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 15):
You also realize that the plane had been at the gate and on the tarmac for much of the day through to the early evening, exposed to the highest temps of the day. I'm sure you're also aware of the fact that the air conditioning packs, which surround the center tank, had also been running for hours and get extremely hot.

The airplane sat for less than 4 hours after arriving from Athens. Not "much of the day".

Regardless, the plane had been on the ground for hours during the hottest parts of the day.

Quoting CWAFlyer (Reply 95):
Did TWA typically leave the APU and packs running for hours like that when airplanes would arrive and then leave later? I ask that because I don't know.

Can't speak to whether or not it was SOP at TWA, but in the instance of flight 800 they did.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 82):
Looking through it now for different cities in Connecticut, like New Haven and Bridgeport, they are coming up as 86 degree as a high. Windsor Locks--87.

Look up what "heat index" and "humidity" mean.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 82):
Keep in mind water has the ability to moderate temperatures.

And, again, airport tarmacs tend to have the opposite effect. Add about 10 degrees onto whatever the recorded temp is and you'll have an idea. This doesn't even take into account the heat index for the day and temp increase the air conditioning packs had on the center tank, the end result is that you have a very hot environment, not sure why that's so hard for you to accept.


User currently offlineDrmlnr1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 15430 times:

I can't make it through the documentary. This investigation has been flawed start to finish. FBI really screwed the pooch. Intimidation, blackmail, coercion with CIA. I'm very dumbfounded that this occurred. Those people who witnessed this should be heard. Those who had the guts to speak out should also be heard. Plus, those families need closure. Those families deserve the truth.
They should reopen the investigation, and without the FBI come up with a conclusion. I believe the witnesses who number in the hundreds. Don't even get me started on the people changing tags. They should have been fired for tampering with evidence. And the guy bending metal, destroying evidence. This investigation should be started over from square one. We all need to stand in solidarity with the witnesses and the families. Please do the right thing reopen this investigation!!!!



Flying is relaxing!
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 107, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 15424 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 96):

There are lots of sea to air missiles...but no invisible ones. They all have a long burn times and the streak would be visible from a very long way off...after all, it was a pretty clear night. The flight time would not be instantaneous, so there would be plenty of time for the flight to be visible to someone. There are millions of people in the region and probably hundreds of radars capable of detecting a missile. Picking a missile instead of a bomb is a serious stretch.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 94):
My point here is...In all the above accidents while local police presence existed at all the events, the press were free to go about their business for the most part unrestricted. There were no FBI agents and no culture of a crime scene was obvious as the normal routine used to be, first the NTSB investigates, and if foul play was involved or suspected then the Feds were called in to assist the NTSB. TWA 800 changed all that.

Of course it was a crime scene. So was any airline accident where foul play is suspected, not just 800. The plane blew up so the first theories were that a bomb went off. That makes it a crime scene. At most other accidents, it's usually obvious that there was no criminal intent to bring down the plane. The NTSB is not a criminal investigation organization so would not be in the lead of a criminal investigation.

Have you ever seen a 747 explode midair in that area before? I don't think so...no matter how many times you've surfed there...and neither had anyone else. A reaction by federal criminal investigators to a possible terrorist attack on a civilian airliner shouldn't really come as a huge surprise.

Everything sited has either been touted before as evidence of a conspiracy, or adds no new actual evidence. Just more loosely tied together suspicion, guesses and supposition. Adding Swiss 111, Egypt air and AA 587 as further evidence of conspiracy and coverup does nothing to add any credibility to 800...in fact, it does the opposite. There are lots of better examples if you're looking to prop up your conspiracy cred...those three aren't nearly complex enough to make good cover up conspiracies. Using them as an example of a cluster of conspiracies because they happened within a few hundred miles of each other stretches it even thinner.

Arrow Air, is a much better one, since there was a public disagreement on the findings of the official report, even before it was filed. Korean Air out of Stansted...nothing wrong with the plane...it just crashed. Spacial disorientation is difficult to prove. There is a long list...those three really don't cut it.

These new witnesses and investigators had plenty of time to add to the picture back when it might have mattered...anonymously if they wanted. Now, it's way too little, way too late. Breaking their silence after almost 2 decades does little more than destroy their credibility.

I guess they must feel it's time to make money from the accident. We just want people to know the truth will probably be turned into a paycheck somehow.



What the...?
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1576 posts, RR: 3
Reply 108, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15343 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 107):
There are lots of sea to air missiles...but no invisible ones. They all have a long burn times and the streak would be visible from a very long way off...after all, it was a pretty clear night. The flight time would not be instantaneous, so there would be plenty of time for the flight to be visible to someone.

But isn't the point here that people did report a missile streak? Flight time could be under 2 minutes.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 107):
hundreds of radars capable of detecting a missile.

The 9/11 radar tapes were all seized were they not?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 107):
Picking a missile instead of a bomb is a serious stretch.

I admit its a Zebra not a Horse, but with the introduction of the (completely unprovable) submarine, the cover up makes a lot more sense. If it had happened according to my scenario the natural response of government would have been cover up, imagine the international outrage and difficulties it would have posed for the US nuclear deterrent.



BV
User currently onlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4195 posts, RR: 37
Reply 109, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15300 times:

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 103):

Truthers are libertarians, they are not "the left" they are extremely right wing.

Wrong. It varies widely and is highly existent among all parties.

People want to see something more behind a simple explanation and will go to great lengths to try to make it so.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 110, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15240 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 108):
I admit its a Zebra not a Horse, but with the introduction of the (completely unprovable) submarine, the cover up makes a lot more sense.

Every navy ship on the east coast would have spotted a radar track from sub launched missile...and we're not just talking about American ships...who knows how many foreign ships are in the area...and Canada has radar too. These aren't relatively tiny sidewinders from an F-16. They are radar guided so they'd have EMR emissions which would also be detected.

They would be lit up for the entire flight...and that's not some dim bulb...it's a huge, bright, smoky contrail from the ocean to the plane.

A hit from a big supersonic missile would not just blow a hole in the plane, it would tear it apart in very obvious ways...ways that would be pretty much impossible to disguise or hide, since they have most of the plane in a hangar where anyone can look at it. That's a lot of explosive and a lot of shrapnel and probably a lot of missile parts which would have been in the wreckage. All they would have had to do is miss one wee, tiny fragment and the jig would be up...and there's no way they could be sure that there isn't some fold of metal holding just such a nugget of truth.

Besides, unless it was done on purpose...why hide it? The military is rife with examples of how recklessness and/or stupidity cost innocent lives. They throw a few non coms and minor officers under the bus, pay off the families and say oops...sorry about that...then say no more about it. Instead, we are to believe that they are chancing that nobody has a picture or eye witness account or radar track or recording...and that's a lot of nobody's...that could spill the beans...and then what?

Look at the backlash when a coverup gets inevitably exposed? Presidents can get impeached from a piece of tape and a soiled dress. Imagine if the coverup was 200+ people dead. The price of getting caught in a cover up is orders of magnitude greater than just dealing with immediate consequences...every single time.

Instead, every crew on every ship, every witness along the eastern seaboard, every piece of electronic equipment and anything and anyone else with direct knowledge, has been forced to keep silent about the murder of over 200 people.

Sure, it's possible...but this conspiracy quacks pretty loudly like a horse.

People can't even keep a Kardashian baby a secret. Fat chance them shutting up about this...not when one leak could be worth millions.



What the...?
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Reply 111, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15259 times:

One of the so-called "nuts" that saw a missile hit the plane was former White House press secretary Pierre Salinger (Press secretary under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.)

Marcel Dadi RIP
TWA 800


     



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1576 posts, RR: 3
Reply 112, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15184 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 110):
These aren't relatively tiny sidewinders from an F-16

It wouldn't be tiny but it may have been a test peice not a standard inventry item so not as large as you think.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 110):
They would be lit up for the entire flight

No, not necessarily.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 110):
A hit from a big supersonic missile would not just blow a hole in the plane .. That's a lot of explosive and a lot of shrapnel and probably a lot of missile parts which would have been in the wreckage.

Dummy round, no warhead as there was an exercise going on but yes, you would expect missile parts to be found.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 110):
Besides, unless it was done on purpose...why hide it? The military is rife with examples of how recklessness and/or stupidity cost innocent lives.

I agree and this is what made little sense but, if a secret weapon was fired from a boat designed to carry a nuclear deterrent I think that would be a justification for a cover up as it would at a stroke change Russian tactics for hunting USN SSBN's and thats a big deal.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 110):
Instead, every crew on every ship, every witness along the eastern seaboard, every piece of electronic equipment and anything and anyone else with direct knowledge, has been forced to keep silent about the murder of over 200 people.

Yeah, that's a problem with this, I am not going to pile on and go stealth missile..

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 110):
Sure, it's possible...but this conspiracy quacks pretty loudly like a horse.

You are being kind, I was expecting a unicorn joke  
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 110):
People can't even keep a Kardashian baby a secret. Fat chance them shutting up about this...not when one leak could be worth millions.

I don't think that the NSA, FBI, CIA and other assorted TLA's will be hunting for this leaker with orders to destroy their life.

[Edited 2013-06-19 23:40:23]


BV
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2762 posts, RR: 2
Reply 113, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15062 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 107):
Adding Swiss 111, Egypt air and AA 587 as further evidence of conspiracy and coverup does nothing to add any credibility to 800...in fact, it does the opposite.

It actually discredits most anything that poster can offer about TW 800.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineAY-MD11 From Finland, joined Feb 2001, 472 posts, RR: 2
Reply 114, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15027 times:

I remember the day very well. I wake up in the beautiful hot summer morning and saw the sad news about it on tv. I had flight about one month later hel-cdg-jfk-msp with air france and twa so i was really interested about the crash and what caused it and still am after 17years. The weather was really hot still in august at jfk airport. Weird thing about my flight to jfk was that we descended about 2hours before landing really low so i could see the night sea clearly,after a while we went back up,never knew why did that happen. I believe something other than the fuel tank explosion crash twa800,there are too much evidence to it the eye witnesses and radar that showed objects around the plane before it explode. I think you all should watch the new document http://press.epixhd.com/press-releas...iginal-documentary-twa-flight-800/ what i find interesting was the part when fbi told the reason why there was traces of explosives in twa800 (bomb dog training at the same week) but later found out it was not even the same plane.

User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 884 posts, RR: 0
Reply 115, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 15071 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A friend of mine was operating on a London bound BA 747 that departed very soon afterwards. He recalls seeing the flaming debris field.

If it was shot down accidentally or by an enemy do we really want to know ?

(Also if not the fuel tank was it random ? Could it have been one of any aircraft that departed JFK that evening ? The outcome and ramifications then could have been even more catastrophic)

What good will come of it ?

(I'm not saying we shouldn't know I'm just not sure how it would impact those connected to the tragedy)


User currently offlineB747400ERF From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2013, 426 posts, RR: 1
Reply 116, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 14954 times:

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 109):
Wrong. It varies widely and is highly existent among all parties.

People want to see something more behind a simple explanation and will go to great lengths to try to make it so.

The conspiracy theorists the past decade plus have been libertarians, mostly Ron Paul supporters who are the 9/11 Truthers and Alex Jones listeners. What am I wrong about exactly?


User currently offlineTUNisia From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1844 posts, RR: 5
Reply 117, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 14725 times:

You can watch the full EPIX movie here:

https://vimeo.com/59099154

Password: epix123

It's pretty powerful to say the least.



Someday the sun will shine down on me in some faraway place - Mahalia Jackson
User currently offlinedaviation From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 118, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 14585 times:

John Miller, one of this country's most respected investigative journalists, just appeared on CBS This Morning to discuss the topic. By incredible coincidence, he happened to be riding his own boat only 14 miles from the crash site and was the first investigative reporter on the scene.

He has seen the new documentary. His response: "it doesn't bring up new questions, it rehashes old questions." He said that the documentary is parsed and edited so that it appears very compelling, but for every theory raised there is a rational answer that the documentary producers have chosen to leave out.

At the same time, however, he does not dismiss these retired investigators as cranks. He said that a few of them are serious people and have raised questions that deserve more scrutiny. But he doesn't believe that the outcome of the investigation will change, or that a missile brought down the plane.


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 119, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 14537 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 96):
The eyewitness problem, most are not believed because they have in the past proved less than perfect. It was approaching dusk not nighttime if I recall.

The sun was just above the horizon at the 13,700 altitude so livery colors would still be identifiable from the ground. It was a windless/ clear evening.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 98):
IF anything they all learned what happened at Lockerbie and identified the source. They didn't find a bomb or any such device here, They found no high speed velocity items are anything else in that Fuel tank.

Long after the black boxes were recovered along with enough of the debris, the following winter, 1996-97, The FBI hired three local fisherman and their commercial rigs with specially designed nets to troll the ocean bottom for three months. These fisherman would have missed out on their "season" but I'm sure the feds made the ta$k well worth it. Now just what were they looking for?......Below...the three engine cores, P&W JT9-D's in a scrap metal container. Now how many 747's do we have in junk yards with evidence of salt water corrosion on them?...
3 cores in this container
Scrapped JT9D


User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 120, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 14488 times:

A missile at night in the distance would appear as a moving dot of light, not a streak of flame, wouldn't it?

The dot would disappear well before the target explosion for a long range intercept because the rocket motor burns out fairly quickly. Even with the motor burning, an observer would see a dot of light moving in the distance, not a streak of flame from launcher to target.

You'd have to be fairly close to discern the light as the plume of a rocket motor, I'd think. And even then, it still isn't a long streak of flame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...yer_detailpage&v=IZ4tbxcbjRg#t=20s


User currently offlinesuseJ772 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 816 posts, RR: 1
Reply 121, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14188 times:

Quoting richierich (Reply 61):
Highs were in the mid-90s, humidity was through the roof, and as evening time came there was welcome relief as the temperature started dropping into the 80s. Maybe there was some breeze at JFK that I didn't have in "upstate" Connecticut, but I can tell you this was a dog of a day.

So... pretty much every spring/summer/fall day in ATL or MCO? Again, I don't buy the alternate theory and I don't buy the real theory. But the "warm day" argument is so weird to me.

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 83):
This. Even the guys that killed Osama could not keep quiet. And there was only a team of them. Really. Time to move on.

That's because the President couldn't keep his mouth shut.



Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 122, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14066 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 78):
Quoting D L X (Reply 71):
Well clearly it STOPPED climbing, but also as clearly, it did climb to a certain altitude before it stopped

Neither climbed 3,000 ft.

Then what is your problem with what I said?

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 78):
Then I would assume your an expert on this topic

Dude, cut the hysterics. I never claimed to be.

Your dismissal of my comments without adding any actual criticism is not constructive.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 87):
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 3):
The reason its news is that six investigators claimed to be under a gag order but now are retired and don't care. Supposedly they don't claim to know for sure, but they don't agree with the official cause.

They should have spoken up at the time. Gutless.

  

Quoting stltrojan (Reply 92):

All I can tell you is that my buddy was dating Jeffrey Erikson's daughter at the time. Our crew was all hanging out that night when it happened, she talked with her Mom just after the news hit and she was told that her Dad who was in London on official TWA business was immediately summonsed to the White House......

While this looks way too much like a game of telephone ("my buddy's girlfriend's mother told me" is hearsay upon hearsay), even if so, it does not equate to military shootdown. The prevailing initial thought was that this was a terrorist attack, so yes, the White House would be involved.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 110):
They would be lit up for the entire flight...and that's not some dim bulb...it's a huge, bright, smoky contrail from the ocean to the plane.

This.

It wasn't night when the plane went down. A plume would have been visible.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 110):
A hit from a big supersonic missile would not just blow a hole in the plane, it would tear it apart in very obvious ways...ways that would be pretty much impossible to disguise or hide, since they have most of the plane in a hangar where anyone can look at it.

And this.

A missile would not shear off the nose of the plane. It would mash it to bits.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 112):
Dummy round, no warhead as there was an exercise going on

IIRC, the report considered this, and the British followed up on it. Without an explosion, you would need even more to bring down an aircraft, let alone knock the nose section off the plane. Even if the dummy round hit the center wing tank, there would be external markings from escaping gases indicating that had happened, and the wreckage did not exhibit any such markings.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1576 posts, RR: 3
Reply 123, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 14014 times:

I have now seen the documentary and it does in fact raise some serious questions about the investigation.

Quoting daviation (Reply 118):
He has seen the new documentary. His response: "it doesn't bring up new questions, it rehashes old questions."

The old questions are good questions and they remain unanswered.



BV
User currently offlinemd80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 124, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13957 times:

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 116):
The conspiracy theorists the past decade plus have been libertarians, mostly Ron Paul supporters who are the 9/11 Truthers and Alex Jones listeners. What am I wrong about exactly?

It doesn't matter if it's believers of the tooth fairy or Ronald McDonald-for-president supporters, if what they are saying is true how can they be argued with? Haven't you heard "it's the message, not the messenger" before?

It's way too easy (requires minimal thought) to lump everyone into one of two groups, the "us" which believes everything uttered by "accepted" sources, and the "them" which believes everything else and are thusly demonized for it. Besides, this is a well known method of controlling the narrative on forums such as this, along with an easily visible post count and respect rating (thought that would have been obvious). That's why I no longer add people to my list, and haven't since 2004, although I do indeed respect the opinions of a great many of you.


User currently offlinemd80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 125, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13907 times:

Hmmm, I thought someone would have taken the "bait" of the Ethiopian 767 ditching by now. I sure had my head bitten off in this forum in 2006/2007 when I first noticed something fishy going on with respect to that video. A few people with sharp recall of astounding mechanical odysseys regarding airliners actually remembered the original video, and fewer still were brave enough to admit it.

Sorry that it seems to be off-topic ... but as evidence that the authorities are not always right or are not always truthful, it does indeed belong here in support of those who choose to believe that TWA 800 was not lost to a freak fuel tank explosion.


User currently offlinesuseJ772 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 816 posts, RR: 1
Reply 126, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13845 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 123):
The old questions are good questions and they remain unanswered.

I watched the whole documentary just now. Exactly how I felt as well.



Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5523 posts, RR: 8
Reply 127, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 13788 times:

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 124):
Haven't you heard "it's the message, not the messenger" before?

But at its core, the problem is the message, not the messengers! As I said and asked up thread:

Quoting tugger (Reply 88):
There is simply no reason why "the government" would cover this up. Really. Yes there would be big liability and a lot of hearings and recriminations etc. But if the military is willing to admit it shot down an Iranian jet and crashed subs and done all the other stuff it has done, why would anyone involved risk EVERYTHING to cover THIS up? I mean this would be huge as it would be totally unnecessary to do it as if it did occur (missile impact) it was an accident, not an intentional, systematic action. The only people that would get hung would be the commanders on the ship and quite a few above them. There is no way there could be enough support to go cross agency etc. to cover it up. No way. Really, tell me why anyone would cover it up when it wouldn't harm them?

And no one has responded to it, so I ask it again: Why would there be a cover up? There is simply reason why multiple people or agencies would do this as there is no benefit to them and in fact there are far greater risks from covering up than dealing with any consequences of a missile etc. Honestly, tell me who would have been hung for this (the ship board personnel and commanders and others above them in the chain of command) and why do you think the cost of a few billion dollars would be a reason for anyone to cover up?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 128, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 13769 times:

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 82):
So the heat from the air conditioning packs and the super heated center wing fuel tank were useful to explain how the explosion was possible, but now you want to dismiss them as possible heat targets... Are you going to say that the plane had cooled down by then? Which argument are you going to make?

So you believe 50-100C temp (max) of ac packs and center tank would attract a heat-seeking missile more strongly than aircraft engines with 1000C exhaust temp?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 123):
I have now seen the documentary and it does in fact raise some serious questions about the investigation.
Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 126):
I watched the whole documentary just now. Exactly how I felt as well.

Even though as pointed out below....?

Quoting daviation (Reply 118):
[F]or every theory raised there is a rational answer that the documentary producers have chosen to leave out.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 129, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 13766 times:

Quoting csavel (Reply 79):
Why didn't he report it. I mean that could have been one of the biggest scoops of his career. Instantly propelling him to his own "investigative reporting" show on CNN! Most reporters would give their eye teeth to know people with first hand knowledge.

As I said, he knew someone with first-hand knowledge; he did not have it himself. Obviously that person was unwilling to speak for the record, which left my friend with no story. He was not a field reporter, he was an on-air person/executive, and could not go out and research for himself. And if these new witnesses are to be believed (which I believe they are), anyone with first-hand knowledge would have had a lot of pressure applied to not speak on the record.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 91):
Go back and read about fundamental aerodynamics.

I know quite a bit about fundamental aerodynamics, including this. An aircraft weighing in the vicinity of 700,000 lbs requires considerable force applied in order for it to suddenly change direction-especialliy to suddenly gain altitude. A wing is capable of exerting that force IF the angle of attack is below the stall angle. With the front fuselage of the aircraft blown off the angle of attack is going to change, very dramatically and very quickly, and go well beyond the stalling angle of attack before any significant upward force can be exerted. A stalled wing is INCAPABLE of causing ANY altitude gain. So I am to believe that this suddenly decapitated airliner is going to zoom up enough that many experienced observers are going to mistake it for a missile? And that they are going to be confused into ALL believing that the explosion occurred AFTER the missile "trail" appeared and not before, as the official explanation said? It does not pass the laugh test for me.

As to what really happened, here is a list of articles written by an author who has researched it extensively. His conclusion is that it was an attack by Iran, and President Clinton did not want that knowledge to get out because it would have forced him to go to war, and he absolutely did not want to do that.
http://www.cashill.com/twa800/



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 130, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 13736 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 129):
His conclusion is that it was an attack by Iran, and President Clinton did not want that knowledge to get out because it would have forced him to go to war, and he absolutely did not want to do that.

Hmmm... and GW Bush, who was looking for any possible reason (real or fictitious) to go to war in the middle east and had a bulls-eye on Iran as much as he had on Iraq, would have suppressed this "fact" for two terms of his presidency?


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 702 posts, RR: 1
Reply 131, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 13709 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 94):
I have flown that airspace and surfed those beaches for 30 years plus and know them well. I have never seen that many feds in any one place in such a short amount of time, so quickly. And I have never seen warships or Naval assets off Long Island Beaches but they were there that night, including the P-3 Orion w/ INOP Xpndr's?...Both of them?...C'mon

747s blowing up are probably pretty rare, too.


User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1139 posts, RR: 13
Reply 132, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 13684 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 16):
Like some here, I think the most telling thing against the shoot down theory is that it hasn't been leaked.

That's half of it. The other half IMO is that it's an interesting sort of missile that leaves no trace of itself behind -- no exhaust deposits, no foreign materials, no shards that don't fit, nothing.

Eyewitness accounts have been shown to be unreliable, repeatedly and in numerous contexts. It's simply not anywhere near a sufficient level of evidence to take the missile theory seriously. I'm perfectly willing to believe in an alternative if some real evidence shows up, but this ain't it.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5523 posts, RR: 8
Reply 133, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 13679 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 129):
As to what really happened, here is a list of articles written by an author who has researched it extensively. His conclusion is that it was an attack by Iran, and President Clinton did not want that knowledge to get out because it would have forced him to go to war, and he absolutely did not want to do that.

That would have required complicity by Iran too to remain silent. And why on earth would they do that all these years? Especially if they could have dragged it out and discredit the US government in the last few years why would they have not done that? It would have made it very difficult for the USA to do any serious action now as the world would view it as possibly "revenge" and not for the stated purposes of keeping Iran form attaining a nuclear weapon.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 134, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 13656 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 122):
Then what is your problem with what I said?

Not a problem with what you said, but big problem with CIA cartoon, 3200' climb not possible given the circumstances. No hysterics here. However since you like many have taken to calling some one a conspiracy theorist, not having been close to the event as I was, then I would assume you have more information than I regarding this event...I'm all ears. Trouble is my eyes didn't lie. I too have read all the NTSB reports and followed this event closely till today...As a pilot, mechanic and aviation photojournalist having worked the event, I'm not convinced of the published final findings and recommendations. This conclusion of mine I reached long before actually meeting TWA Pilots, Mechanics and the very individual that dispatched the aircraft that night. If you read my descriptions above of the other aspects, comparing other local plane crashes and how they were handled when compared to this one it does raise a brow. My words aren't conjecture, just simply the results of what I witnessed myself. So many will call me what they want...that is ok with me...the fact remains a 747 blew up in my backyard, 230 souls perished and all is blamed on 50 gallons of fuel, less than the total fuel capacity of a 172. I don't buy it, ...given the circumstances.


User currently offlineukoverlander From United Kingdom, joined May 2010, 366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 13628 times:

Interestingly Cashill and Sanders documentary, "Silenced: TWA 800 and the subversion of justice" has just showed up on You Tube. It looks like it was only posted on there yesterday. It outlines their original shoot down theory and what they consider to be their supporting evidence.

This is not the newly made documentary that has just made the news, but I suspect that much of the theory remains the same. I'm not saying they are right or wrong but it does make interesting viewing.


User currently offlinemd80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 136, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 13554 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 91):
Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 63):
Good thing they didn't give up on the NSA all-encompassing spy story they've been droning (no pun intended) on about for 15 years, huh?


Funny, until this broke, it was the first I heard about it. Give a mouse a cookie.........

A cookie for you! I think this is the first time I have ever heard someone sound proud of being uninformed/misinformed.

I have always assumed there was spying going on, since first using the internet and cell phones. If you know how those systems work, then a lack of spying would be a surprise, not the opposite. For years though, I was called a wing nut, a conspiracy theorist, and far worse ... nevertheless I was right after all. {That's what I was trying to say all along, but the public were just too into their cult of personality, their social network status, their Starbucks, whatever the heck their excuse was at the time. Now that the main stream is finally getting around to admitting the obvious, well now you listen. Don't worry, in two months you'll forget all about the spying and you can safely go back to sleep (by design).} Sigh.

EDIT: The BOLDED text in braces I would like to retract. That is bordering on the personal, and that is not my way. My apologies PC12Fan.

[Edited 2013-06-20 09:45:38]

User currently offlineAA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2544 posts, RR: 28
Reply 137, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 13470 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm sorry, but I never bought the nonsense about a spark causing the fuel tank to explode. Please. It's a bunch of hooey. I was 13 when it happened and I didn't believe what they said at the time. The evidence that's being reported here certainly is damning.... and the fact that there was essentially a gag order on these men........ doesn't add to the credibility of the authorities who were investigating this case.

-AA777


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1576 posts, RR: 3
Reply 138, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 13466 times:

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 136):
Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 63):
Good thing they didn't give up on the NSA all-encompassing spy story they've been droning (no pun intended) on about for 15 years, huh?

That old chestnut, I worked with the people who made the intercept equipment so I knew for a fact that was happening, funny but I never thought of running to the papers with the information... I guess that when you are inside the bubble you have a different perspective.



BV
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 139, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 13433 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 119):

Long after the black boxes were recovered along with enough of the debris, the following winter, 1996-97, The FBI hired three local fisherman and their commercial rigs with specially designed nets to troll the ocean bottom for three months. These fisherman would have missed out on their "season" but I'm sure the feds made the ta$k well worth it. Now just what were they looking for?......Below...the three engine cores, P&W JT9-D's in a scrap metal container. Now how many 747's do we have in junk yards with evidence of salt water corrosion on them?...

Your point? this was the first 6 months of a 4 year investigation in which they didn't know or have evidence of what happened.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4410 posts, RR: 76
Reply 140, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 13456 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 44):
Being an engineer and physicist I do not buy the official explanation on how the plane swooped up after having the front section blown off. With the CG disrupted so dramatically it would have immediately stalled and plummeted down, not up.

Strange : with the CoG going aft in a big way, I would have thought a pitch-up would have been reasonable, before a stall.
What amuses n- and apalls me at the same time - is that the conspiuracists have not had the objectivity of mentioning the NTSB official report, in which every theory raised in this thread is discussed at length... and dismissed.
To me, that smacks of intellectual laziness or dishonesty.
But I forget, we're into conspiracy theories... that's what Michael Jackson told me earlier this morning.

For those interested on how thorough it was, find it Here TWA 800 report
Just click on *Pdf* on the left side of the resume.



Contrail designer
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2433 posts, RR: 5
Reply 141, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 13329 times:

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 136):
EDIT: The BOLDED text in braces I would like to retract. That is bordering on the personal, and that is not my way. My apologies PC12Fan.

I do appreciate what you were saying in the previous post and in your quote included here sir, but the apology is not needed. As long as you don't insult my mom, we're good.   

Regards.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinemtnwest1979 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 2458 posts, RR: 1
Reply 142, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 13320 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting us330 (Reply 93):
Not on the East Coast. Northeast summers, especially in July and August, are brutally humid. 86 degrees in New Haven or New York is not 86 degrees in Denver or Phoenix--it's worse, much worse because of how humid it is, making it feel at least 10 degrees warmer.

And that has zero relevance. Machinery isn't like a person and 'feel' warmer than it is. To a plane, 86 is 86.

As for topic at hand, I still think it was a friendly-fire error during a test. But I am not a '...and there is nothing you can say to me that will change my mind' type.
It is just what I think and have since it occurred.



"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 143, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13256 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 140):
Strange : with the CoG going aft in a big way, I would have thought a pitch-up would have been reasonable, before a stall.

Yes, a pitchup will occur, but the stall will happen simultaneously. The plane would have been still in a climb, with not a lot of excess airspeed, and there is not enough energy available for the dramatic climb that the cartoonists on the official inquiry portrayed. The key is angle of attack and momentum; if the angle of attack was changed to best angle of climb and stayed there, the momentum would have enabled the plane to climb until it slowed down to stall speed. But that would have been a controlled scenario; the front fuselage being blown off was definitely uncontrolled, and it would have gone very rapidly past the stalling angle of attack, resulting in almost immediate complete loss of lift, and the plane plummeting down. And I did read the report; it does not convince me, because their explanation violates basic physics and aerodynamics, and contradicts a large number of (to me) very credible witnesses. I can write all kinds of reports, setting up and shooting down a whole bunch of straw men, and they will read very credibly to a lot of people, but that does not mean that I am not just blowing smoke the whole time. If the investigators did not want to publicize the truth, they have plenty of talented people to write all kinds of convincing blather. It still comes down to me to two facts: one, that many credible witnesses agree that a missile appeared to strike the plane BEFORE it exploded, several of which had had personal experiences with missiles, and two, that the official report relies on a physical impossibility to explain this.

As to the "hot day", while NYC can get hot, it is positively cold even at its hottest compared to places like the Middle East, India, Equatorial Africa, and the Pacific Islands, places where 747's have been flying for over 40 years without any of them having their center fuel tanks explode.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 144, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13214 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 129):
A stalled wing is INCAPABLE of causing ANY altitude gain.

Are you suggesting that a plane has no inertia? The equivalent would be saying that a car immediately goes backwards when you take your foot off the gas, thus removing its forward force component.

While a stalled wing clearly does not provide a lifting force, a ballistically behaving projectile (as a crippled TWA 800 probably was) will continue in the direction it was headed due to inertia as gravity and drag act upon it to slow it down and change the rate of rise from positive to negative. A climbing airplane does not instantly start losing altitude the instant the wings stall. Physics says that the lack of the upward force will mean a vertically negative acceleration, which of course would at some point later result in lost altitude.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 129):
So I am to believe that this suddenly decapitated airliner is going to zoom up enough that many experienced observers are going to mistake it for a missile?

Absolutely! It all depends on where the observers are located. The plane was out over the water. The observers were on land. ANY projectile moving towards the observer, even one decreasing in altitude, may appear to be rising.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 129):
As to what really happened, here is a list of articles written by an author who has researched it extensively. His conclusion is that it was an attack by Iran, and President Clinton did not want that knowledge to get out because it would have forced him to go to war, and he absolutely did not want to do that.
http://www.cashill.com/twa800/

You mean Jack Cashill, noted conspiracy theorist?

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 134):
Not a problem with what you said, but big problem with CIA cartoon, 3200' climb not possible given the circumstances. No hysterics here. However since you like many have taken to calling some one a conspiracy theorist, not having been close to the event as I was, then I would assume you have more information than I regarding this event...I'm all ears.

No, my problem with what you said was that you conclude that "the truth will come" as an answer to the naysayers. I've never claimed to be an expert, but I'm pretty knowledgeable about math, science, physics, and aviation. I haven't read it recently, but I've read the TWA 800 report, and find its conclusions dramatically more plausible than the shoot down theories. In fact, the ONLY evidence supporting the shoot down theories is that people reported seeing something (a missile?) rise before seeing an explosion. Eyewitness evidence is notoriously inaccurate, as the mind reorders events to make them explainable to the psyche. (That's not hooey, that's science.) Science explains a rise in altitude that corroborates the many simulations that were conducted. More science: removing several thousand pounds of weight in front of the CG of the plane will cause the plane to tip up. Inertia means the crippled plane wants to keep going moving. AoA up + inertia means the plane should rise until stall. This all corroborated with the evidence on the ground: parts forward of the CG were found in one place, parts after the CG were found much further down course. In short, the missile theory is easily explained away. Saying "the truth will come" just means you won't accept any answer other than your desired answer. That simply does not cut it for me.

I'd add that I do not believe that a flawed investigation means that the answer is clearly the opposite. Accident reconstruction is hard - there are a LOT of variables, and a lot of evidence that can never be found. But the fact that evidence is not found does not mean that it is being withheld, and does not infer a different answer.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 134):
If you read my descriptions above of the other aspects, comparing other local plane crashes and how they were handled when compared to this one it does raise a brow. My words aren't conjecture, just simply the results of what I witnessed myself.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 143):
The key is angle of attack and momentum; if the angle of attack was changed to best angle of climb and stayed there, the momentum would have enabled the plane to climb until it slowed down to stall speed.

I can agree with that. However, we keep throwing around 3,000 feet as if that was the known altitude the craft rose. The report does not say that, but rather, that it went up a max of 3,000 feet. As I explained earlier though, it does not have to rise nearly that much to appear to be rising from observers on the shore.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 145, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13160 times:

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 103):
Truthers are libertarians, they are not "the left" they are extremely right wing.

Libertarians are neither far right nor far left. They are a mix and go their own way

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 96):
Submarine guys are not Army guys. Even air force guys can keep secrets for decades of things that fly in plain sight.

I cannot buy that a whole crew of a ship or sub would stay quiet, I'm sorry, I can't buy it. Bad stuff happens in war and atrocities happen, but this wasn't "the enemy," these were American citizens. While I think troops do get praised to much in the US and get let off the hook for a lot of things, I don't go to the other extreme and think that all of them are moral-less drones that would be ok with killing Americans. Not an entire crew, no. Maybe a hand selected, small crew of 5 or so on a swift boat using a shoulder launched missile, but that is pretty far fetched too. Why would they be so secretive about that and hide the secret small team near a bunch of ships doing missile exercises? That would be very stupid

Quoting AA777 (Reply 137):

I'm sorry, but I never bought the nonsense about a spark causing the fuel tank to explode. Please. It's a bunch of hooey.

Didn't Boeing, before this incident even happened, issue a warning against this? I don't think it's a bunch of "hooey" unless Boeing issued a bogus statement years prior, and that would take the conspiracy theory to some crazy elaborate levels.



I do warn people one thing... while I'm glad we are able and we do question the official reports, don't see something that "looks and sounds convincing" and just go with that. The official reports will be challenged, but don't believe the challenges until they are challenged themselves. See both sides, don't just stop when you see something that looks pretty good. Look at "Loose Change," the 9/11 video. It made a lot of people skeptics despite many of the "facts" in the video being wrong.

Don't fall into the same trap, and I hope the truth becomes known, whether it's the official report or a shoot down. Beware of the government, yes, but also beware of the media that is surrounding this event. Skeptics of TWA 800 aren't exactly new... people breaking their silence may not have anything that wasn't known decades ago



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinerichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4248 posts, RR: 6
Reply 146, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13135 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 127):
And no one has responded to it, so I ask it again: Why would there be a cover up? There is simply reason why multiple people or agencies would do this as there is no benefit to them and in fact there are far greater risks from covering up than dealing with any consequences of a missile etc. Honestly, tell me who would have been hung for this (the ship board personnel and commanders and others above them in the chain of command) and why do you think the cost of a few billion dollars would be a reason for anyone to cover up?

100% agreed.
The risk of getting caught covering up something like this far exceeds owning up to an accidental missile firing, as horrendous as that would be. Exposing such a cover-up (with irrefutable proof) would completely undermine the government regardless of how many different administrations have come and gone since 1996, and I cannot imagine why that would have been the better route to take.

I feel like these theories come out because some people don't trust the government at all and every time a new allegation comes out that undermines this trust in any way, they jump all over it. The phone-tapping/phone-records scandal may be un-American in its nature, but I think we all enjoy being safer and as far as I am concerned this program has done its job since 9/11. The timing of the "new" TWA 800 conspiracy allegations is not a coincidence - it comes as personal 'trust' in the federal government is at a low point.



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1995 posts, RR: 6
Reply 147, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13185 times:

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 120):
A missile at night in the distance would appear as a moving dot of light, not a streak of flame, wouldn't it?

The dot would disappear well before the target explosion for a long range intercept because the rocket motor burns out fairly quickly. Even with the motor burning, an observer would see a dot of light moving in the distance, not a streak of flame from launcher to target.

You'd have to be fairly close to discern the light as the plume of a rocket motor, I'd think. And even then, it still isn't a long streak of flame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...yer_detailpage&v=IZ4tbxcbjRg#t=20s

The Science Reporter for CNN, who toured the aircraft at Calverton after it was reconstructed and who has followed this story for the last 17 years, interviewed one of these people who claims it was a missile, and the guy has the radar tapes to allegedly prove it. So he shows the reporter the tapes and says, pointing at this object, "here is the missile." So they watch the so called missile and it never comes near TW800 or crosses its path. And the reporter says to the guy, "can you explain that, how it is that this missile hit the plane but the radar tracks show it never came near the aircraft?" and the guy says, no. This is all a bunch of b.s. stirred up by this one guy who has made a life out of trying to prove there is a conspiracy. There was also no evidence on the outside of the airplane of an external explosion or missile impact. Pure B.S. And probably has something to do with trying to derail Hillary Clinton.


User currently offlineItalianFlyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1099 posts, RR: 2
Reply 148, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13150 times:

IMHO (and I am NOT flaming here) there is a political angle to this story. It is becoming obvious that Hillary is going to run for POTUS in '16. She has already been implicated for mismanagement the Benghazi situation. To smear the Clinton name with accusations of her husband involved in a cover-up would be an additional barrier in her run for the highest office.

Like many have stated, I think the logic behind this tragedy is convulted and based on ultimate worst case scinario assumptions. Its not impossible...but highly improbable. CBC investigative show 'Fifth Estate' (the 60 Minutes of the north) aired a controversial doc about fuzzy science about Swissair 111 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZXMaFtwBKU ). I am not implying that this is a vast right wing conspiracy.....but the timing and implications of the doc raise questions in my mind.

[Edited 2013-06-20 11:27:51]

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 149, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13107 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 144):

Are you suggesting that a plane has no inertia? The equivalent would be saying that a car immediately goes backwards when you take your foot off the gas, thus removing its forward force component.

Not at all; I am saying that the WING cannot cause any altitude gain if it is stalled. If the plane has upward momentum that will carry it further in the same direction, but it will not cause it to turn dramatically up.

Quoting D L X (Reply 144):
Absolutely! It all depends on where the observers are located. The plane was out over the water. The observers were on land. ANY projectile moving towards the observer, even one decreasing in altitude, may appear to be rising.

I do not believe this for a minute. Several of the observers were quite experienced, and some had military background. They would have known the difference. And all of them, from all viewpoints, essentially had the same story. The report tried to sell a completely different one.

Quoting D L X (Reply 144):

You mean Jack Cashill, noted conspiracy theorist?

Call him what you want; I have read a lot of his writings and have yet to find ANYTHING that he has written that I can disprove. Discrediting the messenger does not discredit the message, unless you can prove the messenger has made stuff up in the past. I find no evidence of this for Jack Cashill.

Quoting D L X (Reply 144):
However, we keep throwing around 3,000 feet as if that was the known altitude the craft rose.

I never said how high it went; I said it could not have gained ANY altitude beyond what its momentum and natural trajectory would have taken it; and since it was already at 13,700 feet I suspect it had little upward momentum, and so any altitude gain after the explosion would likely be measured in (single, or at most, low double digit) feet. Remember that thrust was almost immediately disrupted, and the loss of the forward fuselage would have instantly transformed the sleek airliner into a very unaerodynamic blob of scrap metal. And this is going to suddenly shoot upwards by a large amount? When has something like that ever happened before?



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1995 posts, RR: 6
Reply 150, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13098 times:

Quoting ItalianFlyer (Reply 148):
She has already been implicated for mismanagement the Benghazi situation. To smear the Clinton name with accusations of her husband involved in a cover-up would be an additional barrier in her run for the highest office.

Mismanagement? The CIA was using a phony Consulate for intelligence gathering. There was no request for additional security, even though various GOP talking heads keep saying there was. Benghazi was unfortunate. Four people were killed including an ambassador but during the administration of George W. Bush, there were twelve separate attacks on US embassies and consulates resulting in SIXTY (60) deaths, and Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and Fox News didn't even mention a word of criticism of the Bush State Department. How is that? Here is a link to the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrori...acks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

But I agree, this documentary and these allegations are political in nature, and based on supposition, not fact. Perhaps they can investigate the suicide of Vince Foster again as well.


User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 9
Reply 151, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13079 times:

Ridiculous that I was trying to fall asleep the other night and re-read about 800 on wikipedia. Then this comes out the next day on CNN.

I really do think it's a coverup. Lot's of eyewitnesses stating it was a missile, then conveniently dropped by the media and turned into fuel vapors in an old plane.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 152, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13104 times:

If Benghazi hasn't derailed Hillary, TWA800 sure won't...

So I don't see how the Hillary theory holds any water.

If I wanted to derail Hillary Clinton, I'd be hammering on Benghazi...


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2107 posts, RR: 4
Reply 153, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13003 times:

So, If it was truly a US missile that took down the 747, we would have to ask what are the potential motives?

1) Alien on board? (Space alien and not illegal aliens)
2) Zombies on board?
3) Deadly contagion on board that they don't want to deal with at the other end of the trip?
4) Definitely not nuclear material as the explosion would have spread it all over the Atlantic coast.
5) Assassination? They US have had a history of assassination, but usually it doesn't involve the whole airplane. (But then you have the Iranian incident. How convenient that that flight was near a conflict zone.)

It's tough to have conspiracy theory when you don't have a motive.

Mostly in jest of course 

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2107 posts, RR: 4
Reply 154, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 12925 times: