penguins
Topic Author
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:52 pm

TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:55 am

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]
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down?

Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:20 am

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 avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down?

Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:25 am

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 :)
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down?

Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:29 am

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.
 
goosebayguy
Posts: 548
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:12 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down?

Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:34 am

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?
 
SXDFC
Posts: 1657
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:07 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down?

Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:43 am

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.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11093
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:48 am

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?
 
denverdanny
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 6:16 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emer

Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:58 am

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]
 
reality
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:01 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:01 am

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.
 
denverdanny
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 6:16 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:04 am

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.
 
BoeingVista
Posts: 1670
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:09 am

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
 
denverdanny
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 6:16 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:15 am

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.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1204
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:30 am

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]
 
MadameConcorde
Posts: 9197
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:08 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 7:07 am

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
 
BoeingVista
Posts: 1670
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 7:19 am

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
 
flyguy89
Posts: 1890
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 7:21 am

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.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 7:25 am

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...?
 
goosebayguy
Posts: 548
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:12 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:02 am

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.
 
sankaps
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:51 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:26 am

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.
 
denverdanny
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 6:16 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emer

Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:32 am

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]
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:36 am

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
 
airbazar
Posts: 6802
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:03 am

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.
 
CairnterriAIR
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:52 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:08 am

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.
 
RussianJet
Posts: 5982
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:15 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:41 am

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. ✈
 
Delta777Jet
Posts: 1224
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2000 6:19 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:08 pm

Finally ! Everybody at TWA believed it was shot down! Now they only must admit it!
B-717/722/737-200/300/400/500/600/700/800/900/B-747-100/200/400/SP/8i/B-752/3/B-762/3/4/B-772/LR/300ER/B-788/DC-10-10/30/L-1011-1/500/MD-81/82/83/90/A-319/320/321/AB6/312/313/332/333/342/343/346/359/388/TU154/IL-18/ATR-42/72/DH4/DH3/E145/E170/190/CR2/7/9
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3081
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:14 pm

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.
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:17 pm

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.
 
RDUDDJI
Posts: 1698
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:42 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:54 pm

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 avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:55 pm

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!
 
777way
Posts: 6470
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:38 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:02 pm

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.
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:31 pm

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?
 
PanAm1971
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:28 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:51 pm

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.
 
Flaps
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2000 1:11 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:51 pm

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?
 
soon7x7
Posts: 2267
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 10:51 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:15 pm

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.
 
soon7x7
Posts: 2267
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 10:51 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:17 pm

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...
 
D L X
Posts: 11630
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:20 pm

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.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1968
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:25 pm

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'!
 
boacvc10
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:31 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:27 pm

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!
 
4holer
Posts: 2724
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 1:47 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:28 pm

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.....................
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:29 pm

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"?
 
sunilgupta
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2000 12:15 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:29 pm

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
 
0newair0
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:21 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:33 pm

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."
 
futureatp
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2000 3:07 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:35 pm

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 avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5358
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:41 pm

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.
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4915
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:43 pm

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
 
flyguy89
Posts: 1890
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:19 pm

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.
 
b2319
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:41 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:23 pm

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
 
art
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:29 pm

"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).
 
brilondon
Posts: 3014
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:37 pm

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 avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5968
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: TWA 800... A Shoot Down? New Testimonials Emerge.

Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:48 pm

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AU795, Baidu [Spider], BreninTW, deltacto, dlflynhayn, ericaasen, Focker, frequentpete, ikolkyo, legacyins, seahawk, SInGAPORE_AIR, Stitch, stlgph, StTim, UAEflyer, Yahoo [Bot] and 308 guests