What happened to TWA Flight 800?

[kuozzman]

I'm watching the history channel right now, it's "Conspiracy?: TWA Flight 800. I don't know a lot about the "conspiracy", but I think these are the common possibilities of what happened. Let me know if I'm missing any. :shrug:

[meisje]

1. Other: Was not mechanical or a spark

[dave123williams]

2. 747's don't just explode. Frayed wire, my ass.

If only one plane had hit the towers on 9/11, they'd still be calling it a 'tragic accident'. Period.

[kuozzman]

3. I agree with the first thing you said, but not the second.

I think it's pretty clear that, at the very least, Chimp, the govt., FBI, CIA allowed 9/11 to happen in order to start the "War on Terror". It just might have been harder to justify with just one plane. As the PNAC stated in September, 2000 when they published "Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent somecatastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
Top of page 63:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

If you haven't seen the 9/11 timeline at cooperativeresearch.com, that basically proves it:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

[Minstrel Boy]

4. 134 witnesses, radar, and the wreckage say it was a missile.

Some findings of the Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization:

134 witnesses saw a streak of light rising from the ocean's surface to the aircraft.

PETN and RDX (explosives used in missiles) were found in the wreckage.

FAA radar detected Mach 2 targets apparently exiting Flight 800 immediately after the initiating event. The targets are also indicative of a possible missile attack.

The "localized re-crystallization of portions of the rear spar" cannot be explained by the official breakup sequence. The re-crystallization of metal is indicative of a missile attack.

And much more.

Anyone interested ought to read Kristina Borjesson's Into the Buzzsaw.

Her essay of the same title tells the story of how she became a former producer at CBS for pursuing the truth about TWA Flight 800.

It was an accidental shoot down, covered up.

[Neecy]

5. well...

Personally, I think that the theory of a small aircraft, piloted by terrorists and loaded with explosives, is a diversion created by military intelligence to divert from what really happened.

There *was* a small plane in the area of F800, but it was a US Navy drone, a target plane, that was to be used in the exercise off of Long Island. Instead of locking in on the drone, they locked in on F800 and the rest is history. Why the Navy was conducting exercises in one of the busiest air corridors in the country is another issue.

I worked in the aviation industry for 20 years (including 1996), and very few of us believe the official line. There's no question in my mind that the Navy mistakenly took down the aircraft.

[kuozzman]

6. That seems logical. n/t

[DistantWind88]

13. And you think that every single person

on-board the Navy vessel that shot down TWA800 would remain silent about it? No effing way. No way, no how.

[Minstrel Boy]

14. And what makes you think they haven't?

Perhaps you're just not in their circle of confidants.

[DistantWind88]

15. Do tell.

Where have any of them come forward and revealed what they know to he public?

[Minstrel Boy]

16. I said they might share with confidants. Not go public.

Do you think the US military has no secrets kept from you?

[DistantWind88]

17. Thousands

But it's pretty hard to keep an E-2 quiet about this. If a Navy vessel shot it down, we'd know.

[Neecy]

18. how many would know?

It's an established fact that the Navy was conducting training exercises that evening off of Long Island. It's an established fact that there was a training drone *in the air* at the same time as F800.

How many on board those ships (and there were more than one in the area at the time) would have been aware that the launch had locked in on the wrong target, many miles away? Perhaps a handful, most of them officers. Not hard to keep a fuckup of that magnitude silent.

[DistantWind88]

20. Everyone on board would have known

that they fired a missile though, right? Sailors are not dumb. One of them would have put two and two together, yet we have never heard ANY sailor from ANY vessel say their ship fired a missile that night.

[Piperay]

7. I agree with

Pierre Salinger...missle shot it down.

[Up2Late]

8. Folks, I'm not saying I know for sure, But here is what I DO know

1) The explosion that brought down Flight 800, occurred at the position of the Center fuel tank. This is known and necessary for the front 1/3 of the plane to break off the way it did.

2) Any missile :tinfoilhat:that the Military could have fired (Air to Air), would NOT have hit the plane in this position. An AIM-9 short range (approx. 10 miles)is an IR seeking missile, which would have hit one of the 4 engines. An AMRAAM 120 is a medium range (approx. 20 miles) Radar guided missile. this type of missile, fired are long range, would have hit the the REAR 1/4 to 1/3 of a 747, as would all other RADAR guided missiles fired from behind.

3) A mostly empty fuel tank IS a potential bomb, waiting for an ignition source.

4) Most of the Jets, built in the 60's and 70's DO need to have their wiring replaced, or at least, inspected regularly, because of decaying insulation.

5) I flew to Europe, in the Summer of 1990, on TWA 747, and I can tell you from personal experience, those Jets were NOT well maintained. Both to Europe and Back, the Toilets backed up within the first hour of the flights, and on the return flight, my seat back was broken, permanently locked in the up-right position.

If I had to pick a Jet that could explode, without warning, like Flight 800 did, a TWA 747 would be at the top of my list.

Now if you REALLY want to see an Air Disaster Cover up, Check out EgyptAir Flight 990 :think:, in the hind site of 9/11. Remember? They concluded the Egyptian Pilot would NEVER Crash a Jumbo Jet on purpose, right?

[Minstrel Boy]

10. There's a lot that suggests the fuel tank was a secondary explosion.

For instance, seat foam in one section had residue of explosives used in Navy missiles. The bodies of a husband and wife sitting next to each other had been fused together, right down to the DNA. The Medical Examiner had never seen anything like it, and had to coin a new term for it: interbody implosion.

You're beginning with the assumption of the official finding, that the fuel tank explosion was the initiating event.

[Neecy]

but...

A mostly empty fuel tank IS a potential bomb, waiting for an ignition source.

The NTSB *never* found an ignition source, despite years of investigation. They ended up with only the surmise of a cross-spark that reached the fuel rods in the center tank.

If this was a possibility, we'd have B747s blowing up in mid-air constantly. Those a/c packs have been in the same location of this model since they first rolled off of the production lines. And if this really was plausible, why did FAA wait until 2004 to order mods on the B747 center fuel tanks?

I flew to Europe, in the Summer of 1990, on TWA 747, and I can tell you from personal experience, those Jets were NOT well maintained.

Maintenance of the passenger cabin is not an absolute indicator of airframe or other system component maintenance. Lav and seatback problems are not terribly uncommon occurances.

If I had to pick a Jet that could explode, without warning, like Flight 800 did, a TWA 747 would be at the top of my list.

ANY B747 would be at the 'top of the list' if simple electric transference could explode a center fuel tank after running a/c packs. Why haven't we seen a rash of these explosions? It was clear that the DC-10 had some serious design flaws, evidenced by many, many crashes over a relatively short period of time. Why aren't B747's blowing up at the same alarming rate if the cross-spark theory is plausible, especially since FAA did nothing to correct the possibility until 8 years after the explosion?

[Up2Late]

22. I realize replying to this post is pointless

:wtf:What's the point in even debating this when their are several, much more obvious lies and cover ups, re: FAA investigations, but I would like to know where you are getting this info that the "...FAA did nothing to correct the possibility until 8 years after the explosion..."

Do you have any links, or is this just something you heard on "Bubba the Love Sponge's" show?

I mean, what's the point? Is the FAA going to suddenly say, "Yup, you got us, We lied, Lieutenant Bigthumbs here hit the button by mistake, Sorry."

NO, it ain't gonna happen.

I'd like to know why we never heard about the condition of the "Black Boxes" from the 9/11 Jets. :shrug:They DID find most of them (all but 1, I heard).

And, now that we DO know that an Airline Pilot HAS crashed a B767 on purpose, could EgyptAir Flight 990, which most of the reports (except for the final report) indicated that the "Reserve Pilot" crashed the B767 into the Ocean off of Long Island on purpose, might this have been a "test run" for the 9/11 hijackings?:shrug:

[Karenina]

9. It got FUCKING SHOT DOWN

killing my most beloved teenie girlfriend heading off to complete her education in Art History. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[DistantWind88]

11. The question is WHO shot it down...

[Minstrel Boy]

12. oh Karenina

So sorry for you, and her. :(

[NewYorkerfromMass]

25. that's sad

sorry to hear that. I think it got shot down by us too.
There is no doubt that no word would get out from any of the ships involved.

[arwalden]

19. Oh Man... The Current Poll Results Are Astounding!

:eyes: :shrug:

[KamaAina]

21. Here's what was on live local radio that night

I was in New Haven, Conn., at the time, only 75 miles from NYC and well within the NY listening area. For some reason, I was listening to this gawd-awful sports talk show when I heard the guy (doing a Beavis and Butt-head imitation!) say 'Heh-heh, some plane just crashed in East Moriches, N.Y., heh-heh".

Quick, over to WCBS news radio. A woman is being interviewed. She was out on the beach walking her dog. She told the guy what she thought she saw: a collision between the jet and a small plane.

Note that she didn't say "a missile strike". No one knew just what had happened; this was live just after the crash. What the woman saw IS consistent with a missile strike and IS NOT consistent with the spark and fuel tank explosion explanation. She had no reason to lie to the interviewer since no one had had time to develop any theories about the crash.

Say, has anyone checked the passenger list? Could there have been someone on board so important that someone else would take out the whole plane to get him/her? :tinfoilhat:

[Vinca]

23. Weren't there photos of a streak in the sky

that looked like a missile? I remember I was surprised when the cause of the crash was deemed to be the fuel tank. I don't doubt the final outcome, but witnesses at the time were convinced something had shot it down.

[Minstrel Boy]

24. TWA 800 witnesses had to pay for newspaper space to tell the truth:

[Karenina]

26. Ficken A

:kick:

[Up2Late]

27. The Washington Times is your source for all this crap?

:wtf:The Washington Times is a "Right-wing" RAG. It's the paper of choice for every Right-wing Nut in the Western Hemisphere.

You might as well be getting you info from "NEWS MAX" or directly from Rush Limbaugh.:mad:

The Washington Times is owned and operated by the :puke:"Moonie's!"

If your going to upset people, like the poor girl here,:hug: that lost her friend in this AIRLINE ACCIDENT, you better have better evidence than a PAID AD in The Washington Times.:tinfoilhat:

Folk, No! 747's don't blow up every day, but neither do 737's lose 20 feet of cabin roof (sucking out a dozen or so passengers with it) like what happened to Hawaii Air, and you don't have Cargo Doors suddenly rip away a big section of 747 fuselage (taking several passages with it) either, but that happened too. The big difference was that these pilots managed to land their Jets.

That's why they call them "FREAK ACCIDENTS!"

In other words, sometimes "SHIT HAPPENS"

Get over it.:mad:

[DistantWind88]

28. Stop!

You're ruining a PERFECTLY good conspiracy circle jerk.

[arwalden]

29. I Have Mixed Feelings About Crushing Wacko Crank Theories...

... sometimes it's amusing to watch people get themselves all worked up into an emotional lather over these things. But then... we have our DU's reputation to consider as well. I don't think it benefits us to be seen as the home of crackpots.

[Minstrel Boy]

30. Pay attention, please. It's a paid advertisement,

paid for by the witnesses. It ran in many papers. The Washington Times had nothing to do with the content. How did you miss "advertisement"?

What's got ya so mad, dad?

[Red State Rebel]

31. A pilot friend flew 800 in from Paris 2 days before...

He said he knows of NO pilot familiar with that aircraft who believes the NTSB story.

[JohnyCanuck]

32. Maybe they are aware of this experiment in burning jet fuel

Looks like when the NTSB tried to duplicate in an experiment at Cal Tech the explosion of the centre wing tank they had to inject propane into the tank to mix with the jet fuel vapors to get a reasonable explosion.

Jet A Fuel Experiment - RealPlayer Format 8 min. (2.0 mb) -3-25-00 In this experiment Cmdr. Donaldson uses a crab steamer to heat Jet A fuel beyond the fuel's boiling point. The experiment shows that the vapor does not become explosive until 185 degrees and even then it is not enough for a violent explosion. This closed container test uses a 5 gallon container placed on top of a propane burner. The container has a temperature probe inserted in the bottom of the tank to measure the internal fuel temperature. The ignition source uses a light bulb element to create an extreme spark. Click here to download RealPlayer. Download file.

The experiment starts with the fuel heated to 140 degrees which is the highest temperature that the NTSB estimated that the fuel could have reached at 14,000 ft. While the fuel is theoretically flammable at 127 degrees at sea level, you will see that there is no combustion until the fuel reaches 185 degrees. Then there is only a slow burn, approximately 3 seconds, in which the vapor is consumed and the fire goes out. The final test is with Jet A fuel and Propane, similar to the Cal Tech tank explosion video. You can see that the introduction of Propane adds significantly to the volatility and is not even remotely representative of the Jet A Fuel's true combustibility.

This experiment was originally filmed for a segment of the Discovery Channel which never aired. It has since been recreated using a home video camera. While the quality is not very good, I believe the point is well demonstrated.

link to download video: http://twa800.com/videos/JetA_Cooker.rm

http://twa800.com/pages/fuel.htm


www.twa800.com is a site dedicated to the work of a now deceased retired USN pilot and air accident investigator, Cmdr Bill Donaldson, who along with some other aviation industry professionals started a group crash called Associated Retired Aviation Professionals to independently investigate the TWA 800 crash. From the web site:

The Associated Retired Aviation Professionals was formed in early 1997. Its members include former military, civilian, and aviation professionals who are committed to independently investigating the mysterious crash of TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996

[Red State Rebel]

33. I'm not suprised...

The talk we had was very interesting - the flight engineer trainee that was killed in 800 had come over with him on his flight 2 days before. He knew the pilots and other crew that were killed and was just devastated by the whole thing. To make it worse, he had gone straight to a room and slept after his flight got in and hadn't talked to his wife or gotten home yet when it happened. She was in a pure panic when the crash happened.