Since 1996 NTSB said it was an internal explosion... TWA800

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Also, since 1996, my brother, along with just about every commercial pilot said it was

caused by a missile. The CNN reporter said, in the article that no terrorist group

claimed credit for downing the Boeing 747, but I never knew claiming credit for things

like that was evidence. I'm just happy to see they, at least, reported this.

 

There were eyewitness accounts of seeing a missile shooting upward toward the plane.

 

The FBI, NTSB, ATF, etc. have gotten so many cases wrong in their history that it makes

me scratch my head. Waco, Fast and Furious, Boston bombing in Boston and so many others

are showing me that the Federal police agencies are useless in a lot of their endeavors.

 

I never thought, for a moment, that it wasn't a Stinger, or other small missile. The government

overlooked so much evidence and left out so much that their investigation of this was

essentially worthless.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/us/twa-crash-claim/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Edited June 19, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[peejman]

Personally, I don't think it was a terrorist attack.  It was too big of an event for a large organization not to take credit for.  If it was some looney acting alone, they would've blabbed about it by now.  I think it was accidentally shot down by our government.  :tinfoil:

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's also a possibility that was put aside by the Feds. There was a military exercise in the immediate area,

if I recall correctly. Not tinfoil at all. That part was covered up.

 

There was a good fiction account of the night of the accident and the investigation. "Nightfall" by Nelson DeMille,

I think. As usual, DeMille used fact and fiction to weave a good plot all the way up to 9/11, but he laced his plot

with a lot of facts and showed the politics of bad investigation in his story so well, it makes one think.

[VERO1]

And here I thought I was the only one that had read DeMilles books. Well worth a read if you have a little spare time.

[Grunt67]

I'll agree with 6.8, the Feds have lied, covered up, screwed up so many incidents, their credibility is nil. Of course, whatever

evidence to the contrary, is now long since buried alongside Hoffa.

[Sam1]

From what I understand this film maker is just trying to use a controversy to score some attention.  Here were some of the points being discussed:

 

He used ex-employees as sources that claimed they were purposely left out of meetings and not given access to everything.  No big deal, it happens in a big operation... But the thing to consider on this was that their information is either misleading, or their reputation is not credible in the least because they waited until they were retired/left the organizations before coming forward.  That alone tells me they deserve zero credibility.

 

Second, it was a massive operation.  The .gov can't keep secrets with just a few people involved, much less a multi-agency operation with thousands of people handling data.

 

Lastly, the feds went into the investigation thinking it was a terrorist incident.  Why in the world would they have started it in that manner publicly, then retract it and blame it on something else?  If anything, it would've been a cover up right from the get-go.

 

The sad thing about starting a conspiracy is that you don't need to prove anything, you just need to pose a question.  And when the question is answered, you just make it more specific and harder to answer.  It's completely silly

Edited June 21, 2013 by Sam1

[leroy]

I have little doubt that the gubmt is capable of lyin to us delightful rustics for the "collective good" (...they stay in power and you stay quiet and thankful for them...); and they've been doin it a long time.   I have always believed that the Flight 800 conclusions were bogus.   There aint no "spontaneous combustion of jet fuel" (...it's kersosene...).  There aint no "bad wiring" thru the fuel cells, or whatever they laid the initiation source to.  As i remember, several qualified pilots in the area reported a contrail of some sort commin up to the downed liner.

 

My bet is accidential military shoot-down.  Ya cant say ya did that sort of thing.  You simply cant be seen as that incompetent, nor can ya be seen as tracking a friendly civilian aircraft with missles armed. 

 

disbeleivin leroy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

My money would be even split between your conclusion and mine, which is, they didn't find all the boats in the area

that could have been in the target zone for a shoulder fired missile. There were several unaccounted for boats. It

could be either scenario, Leroy.

After reading a piece of nonfiction about submarines and the Navy's accidents with torpedoes, it makes me think of

the possibility of an accident, but, how did it happened to be aimed so closely? You still have to lock on target with

most of the modern day shoulder launched missiles, don't you? The probability of a cover-up is fairly high.

 

I still say it is hilarious that the media expects some terrorist organization would step up to the plate and take credit

for it. Too symmetry for an asymmetrical group.

[peejman]

Here's why I think it was military and not shoulder fired...

 

Shoulder fired missiles are heat seeking.  The missile would impact one of the engines and more-or-less obliterate it.  The engines from TW800 were found mostly intact.  The effective range of most shoulder fired missiles is about 15,000 ft.  TW800 was reported to be at about this altitude when the explosion occurred, at the extreme range of the missile.

 

 

 

 

If there was a central fuel tank explosion (and yes, there is wiring inside the fuel tanks), most of the aircraft would've been blown to smithereens.  The fuel tank in question is huge... 20,000 gallons or so.  If there was enough fuel vapor, air, and heat that a spark could've ignited the vapor in a tank that big, there wouldn't be such big pieces of the fuselage directly above the tank. 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember the home gas explosion in Indy a while back?  There was nothing left.

 

 

 

 

Since the missile didn't hit the engines directly, it could've been two things:  1) A proximity explosion.  The shrapnel damaged the structure and caused the plane to break up in flight.  2) An unarmed radar guided missile.  That would impact the fuselage directly and just punch a big hole which would cause the plane to break up. 

 

But that's just my uneducated opinion....  :tinfoil:

 

:)

Edited June 21, 2013 by peejman

[Sam1]

 

 

 

If there was a central fuel tank explosion (and yes, there is wiring inside the fuel tanks), most of the aircraft would've been blown to smithereens.  The fuel tank in question is huge... 20,000 gallons or so.  If there was enough fuel vapor, air, and heat that a spark could've ignited the vapor in a tank that big, there wouldn't be such big pieces of the fuselage directly above the tank. 

 

 

 

Good point, but it was immediately after take-off which means there would've been a lot more fuel and a lot less vapor.

[peejman]

Good point, but it was immediately after take-off which means there would've been a lot more fuel and a lot less vapor.

 

 

I recall reading something that said the tank wasn't full.  They'd only put enough fuel on board for the flight plan.  The 747 can carry a huge amount of fuel and they wouldn't fly with the excess weight unless they had to. 

[dlm37015]

one of the ntsb people that worked that case is a friend of mine .he refuses to talk about it

[Guest TankerHC]

Wouldnt be the first time the US Military accidentally shot down a civilian airliner. USS Vincennes.

 

OTOH

 

Wouldnt be the first time the US Military accidentally shot down a civilian airliner. USS Vincennes. And it took them about 20 minutes to clarify the mistake and admit responsibility.

[Guest Bonedaddy]

Too much to cover up...? UFOs? :squint: :shhh: :shrug: :screwy: :stalk: :fingerleft: :hiding: :tinfoil: :panic: :bat: :stick: :-x :doh: