Skip to comments.CNN Program on Fuel Tank explosions - MORE PROPAGANDA TO CEMENT THE REASON TWA 800 CRASHED
Posted on 08/05/2007 12:03:42 PM PDT by Freedom'sWorthIt
Called "No Survivors"
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Clintons must be getting the guilts. They won't stop pushing this crapola out there - maybe putting the airlines out of business all because Bill Clinton somehow allowed one of our passenger jets to be shot down in 1986. Sorry story just ended. Did anybody else see it?
forced not fored
What did bill Clinton have to do with 1986?
1996 not 1986.
Sorry wrong decade - 1996.
Thanks - yes - again. I think the Airlines are going to win this one over the Clinton criminals.....they know bs when they see it.
Yes indeed. But they won’t stop through their propaganda arms to push the center fuel tank “explosion” lie. The CNN Program went back to some plane designers mid 1900’s who saw this potential problem and warned of it. Somebody has come up with technology that pumps nitrogen into the center fuel tank or something such as that.....sorry was typing so fast wasn’t able to hear all the garbage. That poor guy whose sister died is being used by the Clinton proxy liars. I hope one day he gets true justice for his sister’s death.
I was a freekin AA missle...
It was definitely a missile and no fuel tank created explosion. You think Anti aircraft? Whose Anti-Aircraft missile? I just can’t decide if it was the Russkies, or the Chicoms.....getting in a “lucky” shot. God knows. Bill and Hillary Clinton know. That guilt is buried under all their bravado and all their lies and all their power grabbing freedom destroying intentions. I hope it makes them not sleep well and have to take drugs and pills for peace of mind - which never ever comes. Bill Clinton looks like the guilt is still eating him up inside. Hillary Clinton on the other hand is so cold to the pangs of guilt, I believe she could care less. It’s over, done, and let it go. Old news. But they just can’t let it go. They keep running these propaganda pieces hoping people who are mindnumbed are not paying attention and hoping to rewrite history for the younguns who weren’t paying attention in 1996 to these events. It won’t work, Clintonista traitorous thugs.
Exactly. And how many jets have been falling out of the sky because of the center fuel tank problem since 1996?
Not just CNN, the History Channel, in the BoneYard series, makes the same “fuel tank go boom” claim. They also noted the FedGov spend more money on the TWA Flt 800 investigation than any other to date - 40+ Million.
Me? I think it was hit by a metorite or space junk.
Space junk or a meteorite - interesting theories. But it was a missile. No other explanation matches up with the events of the day.
You have no proof of any missile hitting the plane.
I dislike the Clintons just as much as you do, but you don’t do anybody any favors by sounding like a conspiracy wacko.
If you believe a missile hit plane, back it up with scientific proof.
A statistical study of a recently released FBI database of 736 witness interview summaries refutes the NTSB’s conclusion. Most significantly, eighty-six percent of the witnesses who described the motion and/or origin of the rising streak reject the NTSB’s explanation. These witnesses observed the streak emanate from the surface when Flight 800 was 2.6 miles (approximately 4 km) above it. Others reported seeing the streak moving along a different trajectory from that of Flight 800 and/or seeing the streak collide with Flight 800 (see “FIRO Witness Statistics” on page 8). The remaining fourteen percent offer no information concerning the streak’s origin.
Rather than openly address these observations, both the FBI and NTSB on various occasions suppressed the witness evidence:
1) The FBI withheld the accounts of 278 witnesses from the NTSB for more than one year after the crash. All witness accounts with descriptions of a “streak” colliding with an aircraft were concealed from the NTSB in this withheld data.[3, 4]
2) The FBI ostensibly lost the results of a study to determine the origin of an alleged surface-launched object seen before the crash. Those results are officially listed as “unable to locate” by the FBI.
3) At the first public hearing on the crash, the FBI prevailed upon the NTSB to prohibit any discussion of the witness evidence.
4) Official witness sketches that purport to show a surface-launched object cause the crash have never been discussed or addressed in any official report or public hearing on the crash.
5) The witness evidence was withheld from the public until April 2000, almost four years after the crash.
6) At the final public hearing on the crash in August 2000, the NTSB dramatically under-reported the number of witness accounts that conflicted with their proposed crash scenario.
The proof is over 200 eyewitnesses who saw the “streak of light” rise up from the horizon and then the plane exploded. Give us a chance to prove it. Where is the body of the plane now, the wreckage? Give some unbiased experts access to it and let’s see what this part of the evidence shows. Who do you think controls access to that wreckage if it hasn’t been buried or dropped into the middle of the ocean by now? It isn’t the private sector.
Thank you! Excellent summary. Despite the multi millions spent to perpetrate the Clinton administrations convoluted and totally false explanation for the demise of flight TWA800 - it is good to read that those eyewitnesses, most of them, refuse to swallow such garbage. OH but they are all just stubborn conspiracy theorist wackos.
I never attached this specifically to Clinton either BUT it always read to me as the U.S. Gov’t, for better or worse, didn’t want to admit that U.S. airliners were vulnerable to terrorists / SAM’s, even though it was patently obvious.
IF this is true, they were trying not to shut down international travel and that would explain all the nonsense that seems to contradict all the eyewitnesses.
It always smelled like a cover-up of some sort, though.
1996, IIRC, was the year of the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia so the jihadists were definitely active. And as I mentioned earlier, hit the Kenya and Tanzania embassies only two years later.
I've worked with tanks, confined spaces and UEL/LEL situations for 17 years now and the center tank theory is about the most ludicrous example of a government explanatory case I've ever heard.
The conspiracy whacko's are the side that keep fronting that impossible tank theory, not to mention the ones so unoriginal that they need to keep posting that dumbass "Sheesh, not this **** again" picture for the 5,000,000th time...
TWA 800? Isn’t that the one that was hit by a missle off of Long Island?
So... what is CNN claiming? That the missle hit the fuel tank?
In the case of TWA 800, we have hundreds of spontaneous eye witness accounts by people of a wide variety of backgrounds and professions as well as geographic perspectives all claiming to have seen the same thing: something streaking upwards towards the aircraft and then an explosion. For a few hours, the FBI and other investigators acted as if these accounts were credible and then suddenly the mindset and track of the investigation changed to support any theory except a missile. It quickly settled on a spontaneous explosion of the fuel tank.
In the case of the WTC attack, where hundreds if not thousands of people saw the first attack with their own eyes in close proximity to the building and many others, perhaps millions saw the second attack live on television. I saw the second attack live myself.
The similarity is that in the first case, in my opinion and that of many others, few facts support the official version and many facts support a missile attack. It has been my observation that of the people who disbelieve the official account of the incident, many are conservative. In fact, I don’t know a single conservative who accepts the government version without reservation. In my experience, only people on the Left accept the fuel tank explosion explanation.
In the WTC attack, the weight of the facts agree with the accounts from eye witnesses. In my experience, most of the people who think that the buildings were destroyed by explosives instead of the aircraft are liberal, and few who are conservative accept this alternate explanation.
In both cases, it is not the particular points of the theory of the event but what those theories imply.
In the case of TWA 800, if it was shot down as a deliberate act, then our government made a choice not to find evidence that would require us to take military action against those who carried the attack out. The implication being that Clinton wanted to avoid having to go to war in the Middle East. This is reinforced by the decision to treat the 1993 WTC bombing, as a crime as opposed to an act of war.
In the case of the theory that the 9/11/2001 WTC collapse was an “inside job” with planted explosives, the implication of that theory is that Bush wanted an excuse to go to war for various reasons, including cheap oil, to be able to invoke martial law, to suspend the Constitution, to bring about the End of Days.
not to mention the ACTUAL VIDEO of the missle streak that was SHOWN ON TV (possibly only once) then removed...
How do I know? I saw it. several others here have too.
There are tens of millions of autos and light trucks on the road with open fuel pumps that run continuously while sitting in the gasoline liquid and vapor inside the vehicle’s fuel tank. This is perfectly safe. They cannot explode. The setup that Boeing has used for decades is just as safe.
The hijacking of Egypt Air 990 in October of 1999 out of JFK did little to warn the Democrat whitehouse. The terrorist piloted the commercial airliner into the ocean off Cape Cod with a couple of hundred souls on board. This occured while the SOB was talking to Allah. What did Clinton and Gore do about airport security after that episode? Sandy Berger and his crew did squat to protect travelers. They had a chance to revamp security and make sure these nutball Muslims were stopped. Clinton did nothing.
Excerpts of statements by eye witnesses:
“We saw what appeared to be a flare going straight up. As a matter of fact,
we thought it was from a boat. It was a bright reddish-orange color. Once it
went into flames I knew that it wasn’t a flare.”
- Lou Desyron, Flight 800 eye-witness; ABC World News Sunday; 07/21/96.
“I looked up because it sounded like thunder. I kept looking trying to
figure out what it was. And that’s when I saw a flare come off the water.
The flare, trailing orange flame, shot up roughly at a 45 degree angle, then
rapidly increased its angle of ascent. Then it appeared to strike
something. This was the strangest thing I ever saw. Everyone calls it a
‘missile theory,’ but when you see something, you know what you see, and I
didn’t see a ‘theory’.”
- Tom Dougherty, Flight 800 eye-witness; interviewed on Hard Copy, 1996
“It was what we would best describe as a boat flare, a reddish object going
up. It went up and a few seconds later we saw an explosion in the sky. I
can’t say if it came off shore or on shore. At first, we thought it was a
boat flare. It zigzagged a little. We thought it was strange. Then, several
seconds later, we saw an eruption of fire. We never heard anything. We saw a
fireball, and at that point we identified what was an aircraft. We could see
it fluttering down. We were the third boat on Long Island to report the
incident to the Coast Guard. It was something going up to it beforehand.
Yes, I saw flaming debris go down. Something attracted us to the area before
it exploded. And even my wife and my oldest daughter, we all were witnesses
to it. There definitely was something there first before the aircraft went
- Donald Eick, Flight 800 eye-witness; October 20, 1997; The
Press-Enterprise, Riverside, CA.
“It looked like a big skyrocket going up. The flash looked like a rocket
launch at a fireworks display”.
- Paul Runyan, Flight 800 eye-witness; N.Y. Daily News, 11/09/96
“More than 150 credible witnesses - including several scientists and
business executives - have told the FBI and military experts they saw a
missile destroy TWA 800. ‘Some of these people are extremely, extremely
credible,’ a top federal official said. ‘When we asked what they saw and
where they saw it, the witnesses out east pointed to the west, and the
people to the west pointed to the east’.”
- The New York Post, September 22, 1996.
“Almost due south [of the helicopter], there was a hard white light, like
burning pyrotechnics, in level flight. I was trying to figure out what it
was. It was the wrong color for flares. It struck an object coming from the
right and made it explode.”
- Capt. Chris Baur, eye-witness to Flight 800 crash; July 1996.
“My God! Somebody’s shooting at that airplane!”
- Crew of a British Airways jet flying behind Flight 800 whom radioed to air
traffic control; July 17, 1996.
“I know what I saw. I saw an ordnance explosion. And whatever I saw, the
explosion of the fuel was not the initiator of the event. It was one of the
results. Something happened before that which was the initiator of the
- Frederick C. Meyer, An Air National Guard helicopter pilot who witnessed
the explosion of TWA Flight 800; 7/29/97; Riverside Press.
“I know what I saw, I saw several fires go across the sky. One hit the plane
at the tail and the second hit at the front, just before the wings. The fire
came from both ends and met in the middle and exploded. Then the nose
dropped, hung there for a minute. I understand that when a plane bursts into
flames the flames fall, but this was a fire going up towards the plane.”
- Barbara Pacholk, Flight 800 eye-witness; November 19, 1997; The New York
“We know what we saw. We weren’t drunk. I looked up and my immediate
response was, I never saw an alert flare like that. It was projecting upward
with a stream of smoke behind. I don’t think our accounts will be reflected
in the final version [of the FBI report]. I have a hard time believing that
the FBI believes its conclusions. I don’t believe that the truth is ever
going to come out.”
- Jim Naples, Flight 800 eye-witness; November 24, 1997, The New York
...see page for more
That bounced off the ocean?
While I disagee with him, Rush seems to buy it.
Unfortunately, the facts have been buried so deeply that I doubt we’ll ever learn the whole truth about that tragic night.
There have been a couple of other Boeing accidental fuel tank explosions, although not on 747s.
Air travel is so safe now that any sort of catastrophic mechanical failure mode is going to be rare.
Only one DC-10 ever crashed because an engine fell off. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Buried deeply????? Really???? Took me about 2 seconds to find the facts...
The 737 has essentially the same configuration so when you think of the number of 747 and 737 take offs and landings there have been since 1970, when the 747 came into service, and compare that with the number of (supposed) Center fuel tank explosions there have been ......
BTW the NTSB were unsuccessful in recreating the alleged explosion despite trying all sorts of tricks to make the environment more flammable. They eventually faked it.
The "hijacker/terrorist" was the pilot, employed by Egypt Air. What do you the Clinton should have done?
The jet airplanes do not use gasoline for fuel. The kerosene, or oil, they use is not particularly explosively flammable, although it can be made to burn if the tank is already split open and fuel is everywhere.
And I’m still wondering what documents were stolen by Sandy Berger for the 911 commission which involved civilian aircraft as terrorist threats.
One Aviation Week article from several years ago quoted a classified report that Flight 800 was on the very outermost edge of the "footprint" of even the best shoulder-fired missiles. There's no direct view of the exhaust, and the missile would be almost out of fuel before it got to the aircraft. Hardly an attack that would provide a high degree of confidence.
It's known that the forward section of the aircraft was instantly sliced off from the rest of the plane. That's why all voice, data, and black box recordings stopped instantly. A smaller plane, hit by a full-sized SAM, would still be functional enough for the black boxes to continue working, even for a few seconds. Unless it was hit with enough explosives to shred the entire aircraft instantly (like some of the demo films of missile tests against drones). You could blow the wing off a 747, and there would still be enough time for a mayday, and continued recording on the black boxes.
The same article mentioned that there was one incident of a center tank exploding on a jet airliner (tens of thousands of jetliners of all kinds, not just 747s). It happened on the ground, and there was enough evidence to show it was caused by a combination of major damage to high-voltage wiring passing through the tank, and just the right fuel-air mixture in the tank. Jet fuel is far less volatile than gasoline, and you have to work really hard to get the right fuel-air mixture, and a strong enough spark. It's like trying to get an explosion from diesel fuel.
The only method to produce the acknowledged evidence of instant "decapitation" (previously unknown in all of aviation history) is a high-powered explosive placed on and around the join section where the forward cabin is attached to the main body of the fuselage. Five to ten pounds of Semtex would start the process going, with aerodynamic forces finishing the job a few milliseconds later.
The implications are more dire than having someone on a boat shooting at you. It meant someone with engineering knowledge would have to get explosives inside the aircraft, and placed at the one location where it could provide a kill with a high degree of confidence.
IMO, the "exploding center tank" is pure BS. Based on what we've seen in Iraq, a MANPAD does not provide a high enough degree of damage, and it strikes a rear wing edge, or an engine, not the middle of the fuselage. Even aircraft hit by full-size SAMs do not go down in the manner of TWA 800. That leaves only an energetic explosive planted in exactly in the right spot by someone with access to the innards of the aircraft.
Except that it was an official Egypt Air pilot who bullied his way into the cockpit and ordered / tricked the others out just before he pulled his stunt.
I’ve read that he had exposed himself while in the U.S.A. He was suicidal it appears, not necessarily a jihadist, but of course, wasn’t too concerned about taking everybody else down with him.
-——— At 0140:56, the CVR recorded the sound of the cockpit door operating. About 1 second later, the command first officer stated in a soft voice, “Do you see how he does whatever he pleases?” At 0141:09, the command first officer stated, “No, he does whatever he pleases. Some days he doesn’t work at all.” At 0141:51, the CVR again recorded the sound of the cockpit door operating. Sounds recorded during the next minute by the CVR (including a whirring sound similar to an electric seat motor operating, a clicking sound similar to a seat belt operating, and some conversation) indicated that the command first officer vacated and the relief first officer moved into the first officer’s seat.
Flight data recorder (FDR) and radar data indicated that the airplane leveled at its assigned altitude of FL 330 at 0144:27. At 0147:19, New York ARTCC instructed EgyptAir flight 990 to change radio frequencies for better communication coverage. The command captain of EgyptAir flight 990 acknowledged and reported on the new frequency at 0147:39.
At 0147:55, the relief first officer stated, “Look, here’s the new first officer’s pen. Give it to him please. God spare you,” and, at 0147:58, someone responded, “yeah.” At 0148:03, the command captain stated, “Excuse me, [nickname for relief first officer], while I take a quick trip to the toilet before it gets crowded. While they are eating, and I’ll be back to you.” While the command captain was speaking, the relief first officer responded, “Go ahead please,” and the CVR recorded the sound of an electric seat motor as the captain maneuvered to leave his seat and the cockpit. At 0148:18.55, the CVR recorded a sound similar to the cockpit door operating.
At 0148:30, about 11 seconds after the captain left the cockpit, the CVR recorded an unintelligible comment. Ten seconds later (about 0148:40), the relief first officer stated quietly, “I rely on God.” There were no sounds or events recorded by the flight recorders that would indicate that an airplane anomaly or other unusual circumstance preceded the relief first officer’s statement, “I rely on God.” —————
While it is not "scientific proof" it certainly is compelling evidence that over 200 independent witnesses from all over the the Long Island Sound are gave eye witness accounts of seeing a red streak come up from the surface towards the plane and culminating in a fireball. Those accounts when plotted on a map triangulate to a specific launch point which further bolsters their credibility. The NTSB supressed this evidence.
The suppresed eyewitness evidence certainly has more credence than the ridiculous, un-replicatable, center fuel tank theory.
How about like a thousand people?
How about the laws of physics?
How about the Governments impossible scenorio explanation?
Conspiracy theory? No, alternate theory based upon fact versus fanciful theory based upon suspect computer modeling.
How about like a thousand people?
How about the laws of physics?
How about the Governments impossible scenorio explanation?
Conspiracy theory? No, alternate theory based upon fact versus fanciful theory based upon suspect computer modeling.
The Boeing scenario is far safer, Jet A is far less likely to explode than gasoline.
Lol, my wife always screems when I fill my tank while the car is running.
I say, “Come one, when is the last time you ever heard of a car exploding because the engine was left running while fueling?”.
Yes that’s the one. CNN program was about one man whose sister died in TWA800 crash and, I think, his determination for all us airlines to be retrofitted with a new technology that will prevent more crashes like the one in which his siter died........by preventing more fuel tank explosions......I didn’t get to hear the entire program but basically it was another (fruitless) attempt to convince the American flying public that all those planes that have been falling out of the sky due to fuel tank explosions can be prevented if the stubborn American Air carriers would just bite the bullet and foot the billion dollar or so bill to upfit their planes.
Of course, there have been no more jets falling out of the sky from center fuel tank explosions....but don’t let the facts prevent you from swallowing this swill of garbage.
I was speaking broadly. Take a survey the next time you can on FR. I’m willing to wager a paperback copy of the Koran (tried to read it twice, and gave up, so it is in pretty good shape.) that the results will indicate a wide difference between conservatives and liberals on the points I raised.
Yes, actually, I saw that also. I also remember the moments immediately after TWA800 was brought down - and like others - the initial talk of all these eyewitnesses seeing the firey streak going up from the horizon and then the plane exploding - and it having to mean a missile struck that plane - transformed into FBI interviewers harrassing eyewitnesses to convince them they did not see what they all said they saw! Then that kangaroo court NTSB program in which the people present tried to convince the world that it was the central fuel tank and the frayed wires that did this deed - denying all the eyewitness reports from even being present to discuss what they saw - I will never forget that.
The old Soviet propaganda machine had nothing on the Clinton crime machine’s coverup/propaganda operation. And here it is 11 years later and they are STILL pushing the propaganda??? Still haven’t convinced the world yet, and surely have not convinced the people who should know - the people who fly millions of airline passengers around the world every day.
See Post #4.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.