Skip to comments.TWA 800 Revisited
Posted on 07/19/2013 7:42:27 PM PDT by LSUfan
When the final official explanation of the cause of TWA 800′s destruction came out, like most Americans, I accepted it and had no reason to be skeptical, largely because I wasnt paying particularly close attention.
The new documentary, simply titled TWA Flight 800, combined with another excellent documentary released in 2001 (see below), has made me think twice.
The reason this latest documentary is credible and so newsworthy is because members of the original investigation team have come forward to call for re-opening the investigation.
Recent FOIA requests have revealed a few confusing details that were previously unknown as well.
It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that our Jihadist enemies, who we know were armed with Stinger missiles at the time, attacked us in July 1996, 5 years before 9/11. Im not ready to declare that to be the case, but there are enough troublesome holes in the official explanation of the destruction of TWA 800 to warrant a more thorough, independent analysis.
Rather than use the FBI, CIA, NTSB and FAA to conduct the investigation, I believe that the investigation should be conducted under the auspices of NASA and the Department of Defense, with a blue ribbon panel of investigators from both the public and private sector. In other words, I believe TWA 800 warrants an independent commission similar to the 9/11 Commission in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks.
Here are a few questions and suspicious items that remain:
(Excerpt) Read more at terrortrendsbulletin.com ...
800 was taken down by a missile.
You know, one of the top theories is that a US navy ship off the coast was doing a missile test, and it went horribly wrong.
Another top theory is that NATO was working with the US off the coast, and their missile went horribly wrong.
Something bad happened. It wasn't the fuel tank. And the US government absolutely does NOT want you to know the details.
Most likely a US Navy test gone wrong.
So you’re telling us that all those people on a Navy ship kept quiet? Like there’s more than one ship involved in a missile shoot and also why would they conduct it where it in an area that involves civilian air traffic. You mean that nobody on those ships said anything? A $500 a month sailor wouldn’t have gone to a tabloid and spilled everything for a ton of money? This Flt. 800 “conspiracy” thing has been going on for years and been disproved. But every once in a while it pops up.
NASA could do it as part of their “Muzzie Outreach”.
Hey, how many folks at the IRS have stepped forward and explained how Obama used the government to steal an election?
How many folks have laid out Fast & Furious in all of its gory detail?
How many of the people who survived Benghazi have come forward and sat for interviews with Katie Couric?
And is bin Laden really dead? SEALs got him? You believe that?
The government lies. And they do it quite successfully. You could ask Michael Hastings or Andrew Breibart for the details ... but ...
Conspiracy theories are the only thing that keep some folks going.
They drag it out, because it’s true. And it goes away, because the government is good at convincing people that absolutely none of the conspiracies could possibly be true.
Well I guess everyone needs a hobby. Or a life. I suppose this is yours.
There is no question that TWA 800 was taken down by something OTHER than an internal explosion.
If TWA 800 had been taken down by an internal explosion as the Federal Government contends why wasn’t the entire 747 fleet grounded until what ever caused the internal explosion was identified and corrected?
In every other case of an aircraft, civilian or military, that has crashed because of an internal fault the entire fleet was grounding until an extensive physical inspection and/or repair effort had confirmed each individual aircraft is safe to fly again. Witness the Dreamliner’s problems with its batteries.
Does anyone remember any such grounding and inspection of the 747 fleet in the weeks/months/years following the destruction of TWA 800?
Just think of the lawyer’s holiday if TWA 800 was brought down by an internal explosion that went uncorrected and a second or third 747 crashed under similar circumstances!
“800 was taken down by a missile.”
Why would you say that? Just because 270 eyewitnesses see a missile doesn’t mean there was one.
While I am not sure the gobberment didn’t do this, I think it was more likely a terrorist attack.
Remember it was several months in front of the ‘Toon’s reelection bid, so the fact that Americans are not safe in American airspace could have been a deal killer for his second term.
The FAA does not believe detailed in-tank inspections of the FQIS components would be effective because the condition of in-tank component or wiring contamination and damage can be difficult to detect while the parts are installed. The agency believes the best approach at this time is to replace the current in-tank FQIS components with new parts, including replacement of silver-plated copper wires with nickel-plated wires.
The FAA is proposing that operators remove and replace FQIS components within 20 years from the date the airplane was manufactured, or within 24 months of publication of the final rule, whichever is later. Nickel-plated wire is much more resistant to corrosion in the presence of sulfur.
That's a mere rule change. It specifically says that an inspection would be impractical. They didn't look at the planes. They just changed the rules for maintenance.
The government had no serious worry that another 747 would explode due to a "spark in the fuel tank". The whole thing was a sham, because the government knows what happened.
Actually the harnesses inside the tanks were AD’ed and replaced with the “new improved” ones.
Not that it was the problem in the first place.
Could that "spark in the fuel tank" have been a "shoe bomber"....
Why would you say that? Just because 270 eyewitnesses see a missile doesnt mean there was one.
I'll bet it was George Bush. If it wasn't George Bush, it had to be George Zimmerman, unless it was really "anthropogenic global warming." Nah. On second thought, it was probably just racism.
Landing on a carrier involves high-impact, and the navy rightly wondered if their aircraft could experience similar fuel-tank explosions —they set out to find out if it was possible.
Under HUNDREDS of different temp/pressure variations they tried to replicate the explosion —NADA. They even dumped hibachis FULL of burning charcoal briquettes directly into fuel tanks with different fuel volumes —again, NADA.
They pulled out all the stops and finally got one VERY DINKY explosion —not even near enough to bisect an airliner fueselage.
The tests were a total bust.
In an NYC jail Ramsi Yousef (WTC bombing Episode 1) was housed next to a mafia informant, and Yousef MANY times wrote to him of the technical details of how airliner bombings could be carried out —the FBI was kept apprised at every step, as this moke won this AQ guy’s trust, more and more.
The FBI knew, and then all this knowledge became a nightmarish political liability after TWA800 went down.
JUST LIKE OKLAHOMA CITY.
Are there any conspiracy theories you don’t believe in?
Had a coworker who’s FIL was an FAA investigator on TWA 800. Obviously the FIL couldn’t speak because of classifications, but his statement was = it wasn’t a wiring harness.
And then folks (like you?) come along and basically say, "That's crazy talk! Your government would never lie to you! If the official government report says this is what happened, then gosh darn it, this is what happened."
I don't consider myself especially conspiracy minded. But, again, my basic position is: "I don't trust my government."
So, no? 9/11 inside job, Boston bombing was fake, JFK, Chemtrails, Reptoids, it’s all gospel?
I agree the Navy story is full of wholes, as a former squidly I can tell you for sure there is absolutely no way they could have kept that quiet. But the centerline fuel tank story is equally bogus.
My bet is a Jihadi MANPAD.
If I say "I don't trust the government" it is not equivalent to saying, "I believe absolutely everything anyone ever says about anything -- except when the government says it."
Big difference. I consider myself cautious and not gullible. If I have a suspicion about TWA 800, I may be wrong, and there may be nothing "there". But merely being cautious about such things does not require me to believe any cockamammy story.
I’ve read the NTSB reports and the engineering reports. As I said before, every so often this is brought up by people who need something in their lives. We could chat about the JFK assassination in Dallas and the third bullet. That’s a goodie.
TWA 800 was shot down by George Zimmerman because there were black people on board.
Did you ever bother reading the engineering report by Boeing? They did their level best to say “You’re completely full of sh!t” but in a very technical way so as not to raise too many eyebrows. The basic fact is that the low voltage fuel sensors in the tank (note, the pumps are OUTSIDE the tank) do not have enough energy in the circuit to create a spark even if a short occurred. That’s ON PURPOSE, because it was DESIGNED to make it impossible to cause a spark in the fuel tank. Anyone ever hear of ENGINEERING? All the talk about a spark due to static electricity or hobgoblins or George Bush/Zimmerman or anything else are a diversion for the stupid sheeple.
If there had been a real problem, Boeing would have been sued into oblivion.
Once upon a time I worked as a fueler for commercial jets. It takes a hell of a lot more than a spark to ignite a full tank of Kero.
any relation to _Jim?
Most likely a terrorist shoot-down. Read Jack Cashill’s book before you yawn with those who go on about “aliens.”
Every time I hear someone like you compare all “wacky conspiracy theories” and lump them together whilst belittling an inquisitive, open mind, I am reminded all the more of what useful, self-policing sheep our benevolent government overlords have groomed us to be.
This “accident” was also just prior to the Olympics in Atlanta. I’m thinking it wouldn’t have been good for business to have just had a 747 shot down off the coast. Demonizing someone who considers the possibility of a conspiracy is a weak argument. Why were witnesses not interviewed? Why did various agencies lie? Why did the CIA create a cartoon of something that anyone with a grain of knowledge of physics or aeronautics would know to be false? I’ve talked to a TWA employee who worked in the reconstruction hanger and all he would say was “we screwed up that day”, while denying the center tank explosion myth.
The problem with the witnessess statements is that they “saw” a missile, but none admitted seeing a much larger 747.
“The problem with the witnessess statements is that they saw a missile, but none admitted seeing a much larger 747.”
Plenty of witnesses report seeing the airliner.
One woman (in this documentary) explains how the missile went up, swerved toward TWA 800, then exploded “right next to” the aircraft without actually crashing into it (proximity detonation).
Watch the brand-new TWA 800 documentary (released yesterday) to hear the witnesses tell it:
They should just engineer planes to never crash.
Not at all true.
Right as this happened The FBI special agent in charge James Kalstrom, I think, in an interview said, “if the public knew what really went down here”. Caught himself and shut the hell up.
Next day he was towing the party line about not knowing.
This gub mint if full of lies and crappola.
As I recall, at the time there was no SA manpad capable of reaching the altitude (9,000-10,000 ft) 800 was at when it exploded. But ... there was a photo published of a stationary missile launcher found by a NYC cop - but nothing more was said other than it appeared to be of Iranian manufacture.
The only missiles then existent able to reach 800 were all fixed stationary mil varieties which is why people were looking at the US Navy.
There was also the contrary explanation that experienced former mil pilots who saw the hit, actually saw burning pieces of the plane coming down and somehow mistook those for a missile going up ...
The description of a missile exploding near the plane would have meant that the type of missile had to be either radar or heat guided with a proximity fuse - this limits the available types of missiles to chose from.
And lets not omit that Iran declared war on the US in 79.
It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that our Jihadist enemies, who we know were armed with Stinger missiles at the time, attacked us in July 1996, 5 years before 9/11. Im not ready to declare that to be the case, but there are enough troublesome holes in the official explanation of the destruction of TWA 800 to warrant a more thorough, independent analysis. Rather than use the FBI, CIA, NTSB and FAA to conduct the investigation, I believe that the investigation should be conducted under the auspices of NASA and the Department of Defense, with a blue ribbon panel of investigators from both the public and private sector. In other words, I believe TWA 800 warrants an independent commission similar to the 9/11 Commission in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks.And yet, regardless, the same jackasses who wound up 9/11 Truthers also carried water for jihad back at that time, claiming that US armed forces shot down the plane -- what a weird coincidence.
Ah, nice little Alinsky method there. Good for you.
Right there you loose. When you belittle the person you’re debating you’ve lost the argument because you can’t support your argument with facts. Nice chatting.
It's always a government conspiracy when people don't get the answers they want or expect. Nice chatting.
Is it aerodynamically possible for an aircraft to have its front 1/3 blown off, but continue to climb for another 3200 ft in the manner illustrated in the CIA animation? Why would the CIA deliberately misrepresent that?
I accepted it and had no reason to be skeptical
We used to call this STUPID.
Not sure what you mean. Initial inertia of the climb force would naturally propel the plane up esp. since it still had its wings. This film could just have been speculation on the CIA’s part - I’ve read some of the conspiracy authors blogs and they ask more questions than they answer. Again as I said, this disaster comes up every couple of years or so. Why hasn’t the media jumped on it? The plane was 25 years old at the time it went down in 1996 seventeen years ago. If it was such a government coverup and the MSM feeds on that stuff, why no “in-depth” reporting and investigation?
It still had wings, but its center of gravity just shifted backwards dramatically. You can have wings but not fly. It certainly wouldn't have proceeded in the straight-line flight that the ridiculous CIA animation showed - the purpose of which was to discredit the 100+ witness who saw something streaking towards the aircraft. The gov't knew that animation was total b.s. when they made it, so why did they do it?
To accept that you have to believe that the U.S. Navy is so incredibly stupid that they would see nothing wrong with shooting a missile into the most heavily travelled air corridor in the world. What possible reason would they have for doing that?