Posted on 07/19/2013 7:42:27 PM PDT by LSUfan
I just suggest that everyone sign up and watch the new documentary on epix. It’s free and you can use any email to register.
The guy who was the lead investigator for the crash from the NTSB says that the crash was caused by an external explosion.
The stories they tell about the FBI guy with a hammer pounding on on the wreckage is crazy.
Those guys that participated in the investigation and the witnesses in that documentary are either some of the most evil people on earth or there was something wrong with that whole investigation from the start. To look the victims family in the face, like they do in the film, and say the things they say.... 15 years after the crash....you better be telling the truth or there are no words to describe that kind of cruelty. And I would damn sure trust those witnesses over that ridiculous CIA animation or those FBI hacks...
Your suggestion that jet fuel “burns red” is quite remarkable — umm, ever SEEN burning jet fuel? (hint, it’s not red).
Go look at the World Trade Center buildings when those planes hit and get back to me with your color rendition of what you see.
If it were fuel trailing behind, ignited by exhaust, how is it again that it was reported to be moving -up- to the plane? Wouldn’t it start behind the plane and burn down?
But still— what about planes that routinely dump fuel in order to drop weight? How come they don’t set the gas plume on fire? It’s because the exhaust isn’t hot enough.
The whole idea is a non-starter.
As for the fuel moving up to the plane it was ignited from the back and it went up to the plane since the hottest part of the exhaust ignited it from the back hence it would travel from back to front. The fuel dump valves are naturally located different from where the engines are. Except on an F14. They’re located between the engines. What they do is when they come across a Russian recon plane in order to turn it back they fly over it, hit the fuel dump switch, pause, the hit their afterburner and it’s like a flame thrower. Yeah I know, 747’s do not have afterburners.
I wish FR had like buttons because I most definitely would have liked your post.
On July 4, 1988, the USS Vincennes, then engaged in a surface battle with a group of Irani gunboats, launched missiles against what was thought to be an attacking airplane. The attacker turned out to be an Iranian Air Lines Boeing 747 -- purportedly on a 140 mile hop from Bandar al-Abbas to Dubai.
Some 290 passengers and crew were reported dead.
However, those bodies picked up by US Navy units appeared to have been dead for some time.
The suspicion -- never confirmed -- is that the Iranians loaded up a 747 with dead bodies and a suicide pilot, all for the express purpose of creating an international incident.
In any event, there is a certain symmetry with TW800...
My recollection is that the center fuel tank on TW800 was only about a quarter-full. They didn't need a full fuel load to reach Paris.
Doesn't dispute your point, though, that kerosene isn't easy to ignite.
You may recall that, during the wall-to-wall coverage of the World Trade Center attack, ABC's George Stephanopoulos referred back to the "national security meetings" that took place after "the bombing of TW800".
Stephanopoulos was, of course, on Clinton's staff at the time of TW800. He seemed unaware of what he had just said to Peter Jennings.
Several years later, in 2004, when the Clintons appeared to be lining up against him in the primary, John Effin' Kerry made a veiled reference to "the TW800 bombing" on Meet The Press.
Kerry was, as I recall, on the Senate committee that investigated the event.
Here is that video:
I remember that. A Freudian slip if ever there was one.
Thanks for posting that. I was wondering if I remembered it correctly.
And having seen it, I wonder about something else. Stephanopoulos refers to "the Oklahoma City bombing", then "TWA flight 800 bombing".
The two events were subsequently ascribed to a.) a domestic bomber and b.) equipment failure, respectively. But he is referring to them in the context of what was a known (at that time) terrorist attack.
In retrospect, that's not necessarily a natural connection...
It’s been a long time since I read through that info. Wasn’t there something about the pilots transferring fuel from the center tank to the wing tanks?
I don't recall. But part of the silly center fuel tank spark theory was that the tank was only a quarter-full while they were on the ground, it was especially hot that August day and the exhaust from the air conditioning unit (or the fuel truck) had been directed at the tank.
Thereby, a "dangerous vapor build-up" was supposed to have occurred...
A few rocket-fired parachutes should do the trick.
Shoe-bomber.
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.