TWA 800 investigators now say evidence proves "ordnance explosions" outside the plane [Archive] - Debate Policy

Little-Acorn

06-18-2013, 06:35 PM

Here's a weird one. Six members of the original investigation team into the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 near Long Island, now say that the NTSB falsified the cause of the crash. Weirder, they now say they can prove that "one or more ordinance explosions outside the aircraft" caused it.

An "ordnance explosion" could be a bomb, missile warhead, anti-aircraft shell, etc... and couldn't be much else.

If they can actually prove that... how could this not become a huge scandal, dwarfing all else? Even if that administration is long gone?

Conspiracy theories on the crash have been numerous, of course. But these are the actual investigators themselves...?

---------------------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/18/twa-flight-800-investigators-break-silence-in-new-documentary-claim-original/

TWA Flight 800 investigators break silence in new documentary, claim original conclusion about cause of crash is wrong

Published June 18, 2013
FoxNews.com

A group of whistleblowers, including a number of aviation experts, have come forward in a new documentary to claim that the official explanation for the crash of TWA Flight 800 was wrong and a gas tank explosion did not bring down the flight off the coast of Long Island 17 years ago.

However, the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team, stopped short of saying the plane was shot down.

Flight 800, a Boeing 747, had just taken off from JFK airport with 230 people aboard on July 17, 1996 enroute to Paris when it exploded and crashed off the coast of nearby East Moriches, Long Island, killing everyone on the plane.

“..This team of investigators who actually handled the wreckage and victims’ bodies, prove that the officially proposed fuel-air explosion did not cause the crash,” reads a statement by the producers of the film, which will debut on cable network EPIX next month. “They also provide radar and forensic evidence proving that one or more ordinance explosions outside the aircraft caused the crash.” However, the statement said they did not speculate about the source or sources of any ordinance explosions.

The whistleblower team, which includes investigators-at the time-from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), TWA, and the Airline Pilots Association, have since retired from their positions. They claim that at the time, they were placed under a gag order by the NTSB, which they charged falsified the official conclusion of the cause of the crash. They indicated they would elaborate more in a Wednesday media briefing.

The NTSB report, the culmination of a four-year investigation, suggested the cause of the explosion was due to an explosion in the gas tank caused by a short circuit.

Voted4Reagan

06-18-2013, 08:22 PM

Move to Conspiracy...

I know the people that worked the Recovery operation and have even piloted the LCM-8 that brought in the Wreckage.

(See Below)
http://www.millermarineservices.com/images/Jennifer.jpg

Here she is alongside the Navy Salvage ship...RS 53... USS Grapple

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_P96fiCcMccM/Sm9H7jlXQ9I/AAAAAAAAAII/HaywTYjtlec/s320/TWA+800+salvage.jpg

Sorry Acorn.... this is just a bunch of unsubstantiated conjecture from a bunch of guys that were around 17 years ago...

It was an Accident... I talked with the people that were there who worked on that recovery...

It was an internal explosion... Not a Missle or external explosion.

This is just a conspiracy theory and proven false a thousand times...

I'll keep going if you like......

fj1200

06-18-2013, 08:29 PM

Move to Conspiracy...

I know the people that worked the Recovery operation and have even piloted the LCM-8 that brought in the Wreckage.

Not commenting on the conspiracy but what expertise does the "guy on the boat" have in determining the cause of what brings down an airplane?

Little-Acorn

06-18-2013, 09:10 PM

I'll await these six investigators' "evidence" and "proof" with great interest.

Voted4Reagan

06-18-2013, 09:16 PM

Not commenting on the conspiracy but what expertise does the "guy on the boat" have in determining the cause of what brings down an airplane?

about 30 more years of Salvage and Naval operations experience then anyone here...

A few more facts...

There were no Navy Ships in the area. nothing within 300+ Miles... The USS Vincennes was the closest ship with anti-Air capability and she was off the coast of Virginia. Well outside the Range of her Rim-67 Standard Missiles.

The Altitude of Twa 800 was approx 14000 Feet... The Absolute Maximum Range for a Stinger Missile. and no trail was seen coming up from the Water . with a max distance of just under 4km... the Stinger is ineffective to use at that altitude.

For a Shoulder Fired Missile like a Stinger, you would have to be able to track your target, lead it and know exactly how far away it is. You would also have to defeat the IFF Feature and know how to charge the Battery to provide the power for the Missile.

Sorry.... Nobody ever came forward to say what specifics they had...

This is a MAJOR CONSPIRACY THEORY

fj1200

06-18-2013, 09:24 PM

about 30 more years of Salvage and Naval operations experience then anyone here...

The experience of those here is not really of issue. Does salvage and naval operations experience equate to flight disaster investigation?

logroller

06-18-2013, 11:50 PM

I'll await these six investigators' "evidence" and "proof" with great interest.
Here you go

***redacted***

revelarts

06-19-2013, 07:25 AM

very interesting...

Little-Acorn

06-19-2013, 09:39 AM

Here you go

Of course, if that's all they have, then it's flat useless. But I'm sure that, if that's all they have, they would have known they had nothing do say... and so they wouldn't have said anything. Hell, any poster on this forum could have come up with that. (In fact, one just did! ;) )

I wonder what they do have.

revelarts

06-19-2013, 11:39 AM

..An errant missile and its would-be interceptor may well account for what two Air National Guard Blackhawk helicopter pilots saw that evening. Capt. Fred Meyer and his two-man crew had been practicing instrument approaches at the nearby Gabreski Field.
At about 8:30 that evening, with his copilot flying an approach, Meyer pressed his face up against the windscreen to scan for a Cessna said to be in the area. It was then that he saw a red-orange streak of light in the sky flash very rapidly from west to east for about three to five seconds.
From 10 miles away, as Meyer saw the streak, it “was moving in a gradually descending arc” that resembled “the path of a shooting star.” There was a break, where it seemed to stop, and then for an instant Meyer saw nothing.
“And then suddenly,” says Meyer, “I saw an explosion, high velocity explosion, military ordnance, looked like flak in the sky.” No more than two seconds later, farther to the left but down, he saw a flash once again, a “high velocity explosion, brilliant white light.”
His copilot, Capt. Chris Baur, saw “an object that came from the left. And it appeared to be like – like a white-hot, like a pyrotechnic.” The “incendiary device” Baur saw was moving in the opposite direction from the one Meyer saw when “it made the object on the right explode.”
“Is that pyro?” asked Baur, himself an experienced former Army helicopter pilot.
“No pyro I’ve ever seen,” answered Meyer, who had won a Distinguished Flying Cross for his many rescue missions over North Vietnam.
The pilots and their flight engineer, Dennis Richardson, all saw what came next: “a huge, slowly forming, low-velocity explosion fireball” that descended almost gracefully to the sea.
That “fireball” was the explosion of the center fuel tank that authorities would later say was the initiating event in the plane’s destruction. Meyer dismissed the official theory out of hand.
“What I saw explode in the sky was definitely military ordnance,” he said. “I have enough experience with it to know what it looks like. I saw one, two, three, four explosions before I saw the fireball. So the fuel in this aircraft eventually exploded. But the explosion of the fuel was the last event, not the initiating event. The initiating event was a high-velocity explosion, not fuel. It was ordnance.”
The New York Times confirmed the same. On Aug. 14, four weeks after the crash, the Times stated emphatically, “Now that investigators say they think the center fuel tank did not explode, they say the only good explanations remaining are that a bomb or a missile brought down the plane off Long Island.”....

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/is-u-s-navy-coming-clean-on-twa-800/

Article talks about a testing a sub with anti aircraft missiles ..source ? unnamed military "insider" with "friends" at the white house.

but the eye witnesses and the skeptical official investigators are what get me asking what really happened here.

Voted4Reagan

06-19-2013, 11:44 AM

Hmmmm....still nobody can tell me what kind of Missile brought down a 747 at 14000 feet.

Here is a hint tht....

It wasnt a missile...it wasnt a Bomb... The plane had some explosive residue but that was from transporting military equipment.

So where are all the HARD FACTS...?

There are none....To support this Tin Foil Conspiracy....

jimnyc

06-19-2013, 12:09 PM

Unless hard proof comes out to substantiate such claims, I have to ask - would it be beneficial to a movie to drum up more interest? They'll have to give MUCH more "proof" before I believe this isn't about drumming up interest in a movie.

jimnyc

06-19-2013, 12:11 PM

I didn't read this in depth, but did these guys release the names of those involved that shut them down and hushed them back then?

they now say they can prove that "one or more ordinance explosions outside the aircraft" caused it.

Did they release this information? A national tragedy, that they are hinting at as being more - why haven't they released this proof yet?

gabosaurus

06-19-2013, 12:45 PM

Here's a weird one. Six members of the original investigation team into the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 near Long Island, now say that the NTSB falsified the cause of the crash.

Five years later, they declared that the government falsified the records of the plane that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. Right?

Robert A Whit

06-19-2013, 12:49 PM

From the first time I heard of this magic short in a fuel tank, I have wondered why they blame the tank given that type aircraft has long flown with no other such incidents.

Why would the company put a wire subject to a short in the fuel tank?

I read reports of a Sub firing missiles yet this seems to be discounted.

I once read the accident report but that was far too many years ago.

Those wanting to study aircraft accident reports can go to to the National Transportation Agency where reports are put on line.

Little-Acorn

06-19-2013, 12:50 PM

jimnyc

06-19-2013, 01:05 PM

They say they have a press conference today (Wednesday), and that the documentary is coming out next month.

I wonder what they will say/show at the press conference?

I'll be on the lookout for what is stated today as well. If they only release crap to get people to tune in, I'll tune out. But maybe for once I will be surprised and they will release the proof they claim they have.

revelarts

06-19-2013, 01:19 PM

I didn't read this in depth, but did these guys release the names of those involved that shut them down and hushed them back then? Did they release this information? A national tragedy, that they are hinting at as being more - why haven't they released this proof yet?

yeah,
what would you consider "evidence"?
a new "official report"?:poke:

the evidence that's trickled out over the years so far is,
-as mentioned earlier Eyewitness reports of streaks headed toward the plane.
(Eyewitnesses, considered evidence in most cases, not sure why it's not taken seriously here)

-Radar report that indicate that the explosion didn't start on the inside of the plane

-and the official report of what happened seems to defy physics.

I'm not that familiar with all the details but if anyone wants to look those are 3 areas that stand in the realm of "evidence" of a bomb or missile being MORE likely than a fuel tank explosion.

I really don't have dog in the fight so don't ask me to defend anything crazy you find or to refute any refutations. I'm just pointing out what some , even in mainstream media, have pointed out over the years about this story. One woman at CBS who investigated the TWA 800 story quit after her story was killed.
why is that? why why why?

but sorry
i should never question the gov't, they never lie. why would they? they love us. they want to know all about us. And they save everything we write.
the news never lies, only people on the left and people who write books and make documentaries lie.... for money ya know.

jimnyc

06-19-2013, 01:21 PM

yeah,
what would you consider "evidence"?
a new "official report"?:poke:

How about the names of who prevented them from reporting properly on the investigation, and perhaps the proof they claim to have? Proof=evidence=proves something. They claim they can prove it. Let's see if they prove it with this press conference, or if one need tune in to see this proof. If that be the case, I'll tune out before it even airs.

revelarts

06-19-2013, 01:23 PM

... I'll tune out before it even airs.

:poke:

jimnyc

06-19-2013, 01:24 PM

:poke:

Sure, if they call a press conference and proclaim to have proof - why not just release the proof then and there? It IS about the truth, no?

revelarts

06-19-2013, 01:36 PM

proof , sure.

there's items that prove and disprove things ...to various degrees.

But if they gave you the names your asking about and those named said "We didn't do that, our reports were true and we didn't cover up"
at that point you'd need the accusers to just go to the facts of the crash data that wasn't revealed.
who covered it up is good info but doesn't prove the reasons for the crash. the data does that.

until then here's something to consider

"On November 18, 1997, Dr. Tom Stalcup was a graduate student working on his PhD in physics when he turned on his TV and started watching an FBI press conference. Assistant FBI director James Kallstrom was announcing the suspension of his agency¹s investigation into the crash. Kallstrom presented A CIA-produced animation showing what government investigators thought happened to TWA 800 upon exploding. Stalcup immediately realized that the scenario depicted in the animation defied laws of physics. He tried to set the record straight back then and has been holding the National Transportation Safety Board’s [NTSB] feet to the fire ever since. The NTSB is the government agency in charge of investigating civil aviation accidents.

"Recently, a group Stalcup founded called NTSB Watch released a ballistics analysis of “radar-recorded [TWA 800] wreckage items” captured by multiple radar sites. Stalcup says the analysis shows that “the explosion that brought down TWA Flight 800 was a detonation or super-sonic explosion that occurred prior to the fuel-tank explosion that federal investigators say caused the jetliner’s demise.” The super-sonic explosion, he says, “caused debris to eject from the area at speeds in excess of Mach 4.”

"Stalcup has asked key members of the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] along with two explosives scientists the NTSB hired as part of their TWA 800 investigation to carefully review his analysis. So far, none have agreed to do so. "His report can be found at:
http://ntsbwatch.com/ballistics.pdf.

Read more: http://news.legalexaminer.com/twa-flight-800-12th-anniversary-and-still-no-cause.aspx?googleid=244106#ixzz2WgiypeTZ

"So far, none have agreed to do so."?
why why why why why?

jimnyc

06-19-2013, 01:42 PM

fj1200

06-19-2013, 01:42 PM

"So far, none have agreed to do so."?
why why why why why?

Because people don't like to be second guessed by those not in the biz.

aboutime

06-19-2013, 01:44 PM

More BS. JFK, Bobby Kennedy, MLK, Man on Moon (hollywood), Think of anything, and call it a Conspiracy...like Bush and 911???

revelarts

06-19-2013, 02:02 PM

Rev, I'll be delighted to read about this proof they have when it's released, not just blurbs. I'm not going to automatically believe it, nor automatically dismiss it. I simply won't watch anything that may make someone money off of this. The proof will be out there in written form as well. But until then, I won't take this announcement as if the proof has been substantiated already, but nor will I dismiss any of this proof prior to having it investigated.

doesn't the link in the blurb i posted have the documentary makers full report of radar evidence as a PDF?
I can't download it from here. but isn't it in writing there?
here's another link
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49194661/ballistics

I'm not sure what your asking for now? more evidence? all the evidence? what?

Kathianne

06-19-2013, 02:11 PM

I'm not into conspiracies at all. I've always doubted the 'reports' though about the 800 flight. Didn't make sense then or now.

Robert A Whit

06-19-2013, 02:12 PM

I don't know what happened. I always had serious problems with the magic short in the fuel tank theory. Some at first alleged a bomb was taken on the flight, then by magic, a center fuel tank had an electric short. That is a wild ass theory in my opinion. How many of you heard of an auto exploding due to a short in your fuel tank? How many airplanes crashed due to this magic short in their fuel tanks?

It is my opinion that this flight is the one and only such crash or fuel fire. Why would an airliner that just took off want to use fuel from the center tank? How could one empty so fast to provide the precise right conditions to explode? Jet fuel is not gasoline. I don't happen to know the fuel to air ratio for proper burn of jet fuel, but I plan to find out right now.

Also how could a wire short in a fuel tank? All I can tell is they must mean wires to fuel gauges or fuel pumps. I had not heard fuel pumps were inside the tanks of those jet aircraft.

Robert A Whit

06-19-2013, 02:21 PM

Here is something for you gurus to study. NASA has a good site explaining fuel air ratios.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/BGP/PAT/Fuel_and_Air2_act.htm

Why does this matter?

First, I presume, so I can be in error, that the one tank you want full till the end of the trip is the center fuel tanks. If you can remove weight from the wings, one ought to make the wings more efficient since they have less weight to support, so it seems to me performance increases with fuel lost from wings.

Next, the airplane had just taken off. Transocean flights should be taken with fuel tanks topped off.

But for the pilot to try to empty a center tank defies logic.

And having taken off so soon, that it only climbed to 14,000 feet means even using the center tank, not nearly enough fuel would be gone to produce the correct fuel to air ratio to support an explosion.

I never got that part of the report so figured something else caused the crash.

jimnyc

06-19-2013, 02:42 PM

doesn't the link in the blurb i posted have the documentary makers full report of radar evidence as a PDF?
I can't download it from here. but isn't it in writing there?
here's another link
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49194661/ballistics

I'm not sure what your asking for now? more evidence? all the evidence? what?

On that link you can only read the first page. Pages 2-9 are for logged in members only.

Is this NTSB Watch the same as the NTSB? Is this the same as the former investigators now speaking out? It will be good when their review of what took place is reviewed further by other professionals. And I'm also very interested to see who those in charge were that wouldn't allow them to speak up or be interviewed. Was all of this verbal? Is there anything to backup these accusations?

I did do a search on NTSB Watch and found their website as per a press release, but the site listed no longer loads (http://www.ntsbwatch.com) . They apparently disputed the findings of flight AA 587 out of NY as well. This Watch group is the same link as your prior link to the ballistics info, which also doesn't load.

Robert A Whit

06-19-2013, 02:44 PM

First, I made an error in my other posts believing the center tank was in the fuselage rather than the wings.I still have problems with the presumption that a surge produced a spark rather than tripping a circuit breaker.It all still looks fishy to me. Today 6 of the experts who took part in the investigation says it was wrong. I will watch the documentary to find the truth.Some of us should study the fuel management upon take off of the 747 to figure out why the pilot would use fuel from the small center wing tank. Some of you may not spot the significance but it makes me wonder.
By the way, for safety reasons, they assume at all times a combustible mix thus take special steps to mitigate such events. Notice below this is mentioned by Wikipedia.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#Fuel_quantity_indication_systemFuel quantity indication system[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TWA_Flight_800&action=edit&section=16)]The FAA and airplane manufacturers had assumed that a combustible fuel/air mixture would exist at all times in fuel tanks; consequently, airplane designers attempted to eliminate all possible sources of ignition in the fuel tanks. The primary means of ensuring this were to protect all devices from intrusion of vapor and to keep voltages and currents being used by the Fuel Quantity Indication System (FQIS) very small. In the case of the 747-100 series, the only wiring located inside the CWT was wiring associated with the FQIS.
In order for the FQIS to be the ignition source, a transfer of higher than normal voltage to the FQIS needed to have occurred, as well as some mechanism whereby the excess energy was released by the FQIS wiring into the CWT. While the NTSB determined that factors suggesting the likelihood of a short circuit event existed, they added that "neither the release mechanism nor the location of the ignition inside the CWT could be determined from the available evidence." Nonetheless, the NTSB concluded that "the ignition energy for the CWT explosion most likely entered the CWT through the FQIS wiring."
Though the FQIS itself was designed to prevent danger from its normal operation by minimizing voltages and currents, the innermost tube of the FQIS compensator showed damage similar to that of the compensator tube that was the ignition source for the surge tank fire that destroyed a 747 near Madrid in 1976.[122] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#cite_note-122) This was not considered "proof" of a source of ignition. There was evidence of arcing in a wire bundle that included FQIS wiring that connected with the Center Wing Tank.[123] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#cite_note-p288-123) There was also arcing evidenced on two wires sharing a cable raceway with FQIS wiring at station 955.[123] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#cite_note-p288-123)
The Captain's Cockpit Voice Recorder channel showed two "dropouts" of background power harmonics in the second before the recording ended (with the separation of the nose).[124] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#cite_note-124) This might well be the signature of an arc on cockpit wiring adjacent to the FQIS wiring. The captain commented on the "crazy" readings of the number 4 engine fuel flow gauge about 2-1/2 minutes before the CVR recording ended.[125] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#cite_note-p290-125) Finally, the Center Wing Tank fuel quantity gauge was recovered and indicated 640 pounds instead of the 300 pounds that had been loaded into that tank.[125] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#cite_note-p290-125) Experiments showed that applying power to a wire leading to the fuel quantity gauge can cause the digital display to change by several hundred pounds before the circuit breaker trips. Thus the gauge anomaly could have been caused by a short to the FQIS wiring.[125] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#cite_note-p290-125) The NTSB concluded that the most likely source of sufficient voltage to cause ignition was a short from damaged wiring, or within electrical components of the FQIS. As not all components and wiring were recovered, it was not possible to pin-point the source of the necessary voltage.
Conclusions[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TWA_Flight_800&action=edit&section=17)]
The NTSB investigation ended with the adoption of its final report on August 23, 2000. In it the Board determined that the probable cause of the TWA 800 accident was:[126] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#cite_note-Final_Report_pg.308-126)
[An] explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT), resulting from ignition of the inflammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system.

Robert A Whit

06-19-2013, 03:00 PM

Notice. Posted for educational purpose solely.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/twa-flight-800-crash-investigation-ntsb-141624708.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/twa-flight-800-crash-investigation-ntsb-141624708.html)

The producers of an upcoming documentary on TWA Flight 800—which exploded and crashed into the waters off Long Island, N.Y., on July 17, 1996, killing all 230 people on board—claim to have proof that a missile caused the Paris-bound flight to crash. And six former investigators who took part in the film say there was a cover-up and want the case reopened.
"There was a lack of coordination and willful denial of information," Hank Hughes, a senior accident investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board, said on Wednesday during a conference call with reporters. "There were 755 witnesses. At no time was information provided by the witnesses shared by the FBI."
Jim Speer, an accident investigator at the time of the crash for the Airline Pilots Association, who sifted through the recovered wreckage in a hangar, said he discovered holes consistent with those that would be formed by a high-energy blast in the right wing. He requested it be tested for explosives. When the test came back positive, he said, he was "physically removed" from a room by two CIA agents.
The investigators would not speculate on the reasons for the alleged coverup or who would have fired the missile that they believe took down the plane.
After a four-year investigation, the NTSB concluded the plane was destroyed by a center fuel tank explosion likely caused by a spark from faulty wiring. But according to Tom Stalcup, a co-producer of the documentary, the film presents new "radar and forensic evidence proving that one or more ordnance explosions outside the aircraft caused the crash." The film will premiere on EPIX on July 17, the 17th anniversary of the disaster.
"These investigators were not allowed to speak to the public or refute any comments made by their superiors and/or NTSB and FBI officials about their work at the time of the official investigation," anews release announcing the documentary said (http://press.epixhd.com/press-releases/former-investigators-of-twa-flight-800-explosion-will-break-silence-call-official-investigation-results-false/). "They waited until after retirement to reveal how the official conclusion by the (NTSB) was falsified and lay out their case."
The investigators filed a petition with the NTSB on Wednesday calling for a new probe. The NTSB had said it would review any petition related to the 1996 crash, which touched off one of the most complex air disaster investigations in U.S. history.
The CIA and FBI conducted a parallel investigation to determine if a bomb or missile had brought down the plane.
Dozens of eyewitnesses in the Long Island area "recalled seeing something resembling a flare or firework ascend and culminate in an explosion," the CIA said in a 2008 report (https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2008-featured-story-archive/crash-of-twa-flight-800.html). "Had the crash been the result of state-sponsored terrorism, it would have been considered an act of war." Also from the report:
The CIA responded to the FBI’s request within 24 hours of the crash. This support consisted primarily of help from the Counterterrorist Center in the Directorate of Operations and from a small group of analysts in the Office of Weapons, Technology and Proliferation in the Directorate of Intelligence.

But after an eight-month investigation, the CIA "concluded with confidence and full substantiation that the eyewitnesses had not seen a missile."
The CIA's deputy director of intelligence wrote in a 1997 memo,"Our analysis demonstrates that the eyewitness sightings of greatest concern to us—the ones originally interpreted to be of a possible missile attack—took place after the first of several explosions aboard the aircraft."
"We went back and interviewed these people and found them to be quite credible," Hughes said on Wednesday.
He added: "We have no hidden agenda here—we just want the truth."

jimnyc

06-19-2013, 03:06 PM

Notice. Posted for educational purpose solely.

Just a friendly FYI, a link is sufficient. You don't need to make an announcement about the purposes. :)

Robert A Whit

06-19-2013, 03:52 PM

I am covering MY bases that it is not for commercial purposes.

jimnyc

06-19-2013, 04:08 PM

I am covering MY bases that it is not for commercial purposes.

It's not helping you in any manner by writing such a disclaimer. Remaining within fair use is all that's necessary. And the huge bold lettering certainly won't be acceptable on every article you post. Just a link to what you post, that's it!

Voted4Reagan

06-19-2013, 04:57 PM

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/is-u-s-navy-coming-clean-on-twa-800/

Article talks about a testing a sub with anti aircraft missiles ..source ? unnamed military "insider" with "friends" at the white house.

but the eye witnesses and the skeptical official investigators are what get me asking what really happened here.

No Submarine in US Inventory has an Anti-Air capability. And to Surface a Sub and risk a billion dollar weapon system for a 30 million dollar Aircraft?? Come on...How far are you gonna stretch this?

Impossible to launch from a 21" Torpedo Tube and certainly not from a VLS (Vertical Launch System) while Submerged.

The only Active subs we had back then were the Los Angeles and Ohio Classes.

Neither capable of Anti Air Operations.

Myth Debunked.... More Tin Foil Needed

Little-Acorn

06-19-2013, 05:03 PM

First, I presume, so I can be in error, that the one tank you want full till the end of the trip is the center fuel tanks. If you can remove weight from the wings, one ought to make the wings more efficient since they have less weight to support, so it seems to me performance increases with fuel lost from wings.
My $.02 as a pilot/aerospace engineer:

The wings have to lift the weight of the entire plane, including structure, fuel, passengers etc. Whether the wing tanks are partially empty and the center tank is full; or the center tank is partially empty and the wing tanks are full, the weight is IDENTICAL in either case, so performance is the same either way.

Next, the airplane had just taken off. Transocean flights should be taken with fuel tanks topped off.
No, transocean flights should be (and usually are) started with enough fuel to reach the destination plus a reserve. I believe FAA regulations require a reserve of at least 30 minutes or 45 minutes, not sure of the exact number. And it may well be that airline officials (including the pilot) require more reserve than that.

But in a monster like a 747 (depending on exact model), the fuel tanks are often big enough to take the plane from its origin to its transatlantic destination and back again if fully fueled. The plane can likely carry far more fuel than it should reasonably need, even including a generous reserve. So taking off with some of the tanks only partially full, even on a transatlantic flight, is not unusual, and in fact is probably routine (and perfectly safe).

To toss out some made-up numbers for example purposes: Maybe the transatlantic flight is expected to take six hours. If so, the ground personnel might load eight or nine hours' worth of fuel into the various tanks. But the plane physically has enough fuel tank capacity to take twelve hours' fuel. SO it will be taking off with some ntank(s) not completely full, even though it has far more than enough to make the flight plus do a two-hour holding pattern over the airport (or buck a headwind etc.).

And it is true that the more the plane weighs (large number of passenger and/or a large load of fuel), the poorer its performance is. All well within design performance limits, of course. But it's a fact that a heavier plane gets lower gas mileage than the same plane with less weight. So the airline will caluculate the fuel needed for the flight, add a generous reserve, and put in no more than that.

But for the pilot to try to empty a center tank defies logic.
Not particularly. There may be technical reasons for certain tanks to be used before others. But the reasons are usually fairly minor. For redundancy (i.e. safety) purposes, aircraft are designed so that nearly any combination of tanks can be used at any time without dangerously affecting performance or safety. In other words, the plane can likely fly fine no matter which tanks you use first.

One reason why a pilot might want to use up the center tank first, is so that in the event of an emergency landing or crash, any fuel-fed fireballs are (hopefully) farther away from passengers. If there's lots of fuel in the center tank, a crash can be more dangerous. It might be standard doctrine (see your handy 747 owner's manual) to use the center tank first so that it's empty for most of the flight. And possibly, when loading fuel on the ground before the flight, leave the center tank empty unless you need so much fuel you HAVE to use it.

And having taken off so soon, that it only climbed to 14,000 feet means even using the center tank, not nearly enough fuel would be gone to produce the correct fuel to air ratio to support an explosion.
Unless the center tank was deliberately left empty before takeoff, see above.

Jet fuel just plain isn't safe stuff, never has been. A fuel tank full of vapor can be dangerous under very rare conditions (an internal ignition source, which all the designers, builders, and maintenance crews bend over backward to avoid). A tank full of liquid fuel is dangerous too. And far more things can happen to set off the full tank (a crash or a leak) than the vapor-filled tank.

Robert A Whit

06-19-2013, 06:37 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=647437#post647437)
First, I presume, so I can be in error, that the one tank you want full till the end of the trip is the center fuel tanks. If you can remove weight from the wings, one ought to make the wings more efficient since they have less weight to support, so it seems to me performance increases with fuel lost from wings.

My $.02 as a pilot/aerospace engineer:

The wings have to lift the weight of the entire plane, including structure, fuel, passengers etc. Whether the wing tanks are partially empty and the center tank is full; or the center tank is partially empty and the wing tanks are full, the weight is IDENTICAL in either case, so performance is the same either way.

Robert now comments: I actually was thinking the same thing as I typed but also thought the 747 had center fuselage tanks but discovered the tank in question is the center wing tank. Glad you cleared that all up. I had a spooky feeling I was saying the wrong thing.

Robert commented: Next, the airplane had just taken off. Transocean flights should be taken with fuel tanks topped off.

No, transocean flights should be (and usually are) started with enough fuel to reach the destination plus a reserve. I believe FAA regulations require a reserve of at least 30 minutes or 45 minutes, not sure of the exact number. And it may well be that airline officials (including the pilot) require more reserve than that.

Robert now replies: I am not sure what the rules state given it is commercial plus flying over the ocean. If it runs into super heavy headwinds, a reserve that small might not do. But the airlines lay out the plans anyway for the pilots. Thanks for correcting fuel use of that type aircraft.

But in a monster like a 747 (depending on exact model), the fuel tanks are often big enough to take the plane from its origin to its transatlantic destination and back again if fully fueled. The plane can likely carry far more fuel than it should reasonably need, even including a generous reserve. So taking off with some of the tanks only partially full, even on a transatlantic flight, is not unusual, and in fact is probably routine (and perfectly safe).

Robert sez: Again, I agree with you and plainly blundered.

To toss out some made-up numbers for example purposes: Maybe the transatlantic flight is expected to take six hours. If so, the ground personnel might load eight or nine hours' worth of fuel into the various tanks. But the plane physically has enough fuel tank capacity to take twelve hours' fuel. SO it will be taking off with some ntank(s) not completely full, even though it has far more than enough to make the flight plus do a two-hour holding pattern over the airport (or buck a headwind etc.).

Robert Sez. Now you and I are on the same page.

And it is true that the more the plane weighs (large number of passenger and/or a large load of fuel), the poorer its performance is. All well within design performance limits, of course. But it's a fact that a heavier plane gets lower gas mileage than the same plane with less weight. So the airline will caluculate the fuel needed for the flight, add a generous reserve, and put in no more than that.

Not particularly. There may be technical reasons for certain tanks to be used before others. But the reasons are usually fairly minor. For redundancy (i.e. safety) purposes, aircraft are designed so that nearly any combination of tanks can be used at any time without dangerously affecting performance or safety. In other words, the plane can likely fly fine no matter which tanks you use first.

One reason why a pilot might want to use up the center tank first, is so that in the event of an emergency landing or crash, any fuel-fed fireballs are (hopefully) farther away from passengers. If there's lots of fuel in the center tank, a crash can be more dangerous. It might be standard doctrine (see your handy 747 owner's manual) to use the center tank first so that it's empty for most of the flight. And possibly, when loading fuel on the ground before the flight, leave the center tank empty unless you need so much fuel you HAVE to use it.

Unless the center tank was deliberately left empty before takeoff, see above.

Jet fuel just plain isn't safe stuff, never has been. A fuel tank full of vapor can be dangerous under very rare conditions (an internal ignition source, which all the designers, builders, and maintenance crews bend over backward to avoid). A tank full of liquid fuel is dangerous too. And far more things can happen to set off the full tank (a crash or a leak) than the vapor-filled tank.

A point I was thinking I made is that the aircraft had spent little time in the air to reach 14,000 ft ASL thus the remaining fuel ought to not create a rich explosion environment. If these investigators are correct, which I suspect is the case, it did not explode but was hit by ordinance. Given the official view was a spark in the tank caused it, which they did hedge their bets on anyway, things happened that make me very suspicious that the truth is not as reported.

As I recall this, if you toss a match into an almost empty auto gas tank, it can explode. But if it is full, the fuel puts out the match. I also can't see a spark of any sort in that aircraft given the way the designers work to prevent such sparks.

Thanks for your views of this.

revelarts

06-19-2013, 06:44 PM

eyewitnesses

The FBI interviewed 182 people who reported seeing a rising streak of light (http://flight800.org/witness-review.htm?#stats) in the sky moments before TWA Flight 800 exploded into a ball of flames off the coast of Long Island, NY in July of 1996. Most of these witnesses said the streak exploded at its apex which was where the jetliner was traveling. Some saw it hit the aircraft.

Federal investigators said the rising streak was the plane itself climbing sharply after exploding, but...
http://tomstalcup.wordpress.com/

182 witnesses but the FBI knows what they REALLY saw... what they REALLY saw was...
OK
whatever u say chief

Voted4Reagan

06-19-2013, 06:57 PM

eyewitnesses

182 witnesses but the FBI knows what they REALLY saw... what they REALLY saw was...
OK
whatever u say chief

Can you tell what happened exactly from a distance of 10 miles out and 3 miles high in the middle of the night?

Please note there were no other planes close on Radar.... no Surface Ships outside of stray fishing trawlers, no proof of a missile, no proof of a bomb.

There was no Sub, No Fighter Planes, No Cessna firing Missiles , there was no Navy Ship within 350miles aand no missile nearby that was capable of hitting a moving target at 14000 feet moving at 600knots.

The only missile on a navy ship with a long enough range to go 350+ Miles is a Tomahawk. And those are ground attack missiles that go as fast as an Airliner.

No Anti Air Missile in the US Arsenal has a range of greater then 125 miles... thats the Rim-67 SM-2 Standard.

Only 1 Air Launched Missile was ever capable of over 100 Miles... That was the AIM-54 Phoenix At 100 Miles.

It was Unique to the F-14 Tomcat.. And there were no Carriers anywhere nearby nor were there any armed f-14's.

Marcus Aurelius

06-19-2013, 06:58 PM

revelarts

06-19-2013, 06:58 PM

No Submarine in US Inventory has an Anti-Air capability. And to Surface a Sub and risk a billion dollar weapon system for a 30 million dollar Aircraft?? Come on...How far are you gonna stretch this?

Impossible to launch from a 21" Torpedo Tube and certainly not from a VLS (Vertical Launch System) while Submerged.

The only Active subs we had back then were the Los Angeles and Ohio Classes.

Neither capable of Anti Air Operations.

Myth Debunked.... More Tin Foil Needed

did i seriously quote that , if you note i point to the eyewittnesess and show skepticism of the source of the other info you are gleefully trying to "debunk" . you may be right on the sub issue i don't know I'm not saying it was or wasn't. but funny that you haven't address the eyewitnesses or the radar reports or the admitted UNKNOWN cause of the explosion. the offical report doesn't say how it happened.
"the NTSB's final report on the crash, adopted on August 23, 2000, "the source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty." [From NTSB report titled "In-Flight Breakup Over the Atlantic Ocean, Trans World Airlines Flight 800, Boeing 747-131, N93119, Near East Moriches, New York, July 17, 1996]. "

aboutime

06-19-2013, 07:03 PM

NO U.S. SUBMARINE would launch any weapon in their submerged arsenal without the President's authorization.

That's just the way it is. Anyone who claims otherwise...proves Rumsfeld's statement
"You don't know, what you don't know, you don't know!"

And..if such a weapon had been used. Don't ya think the Russians would have gone on ALERT, since they know...as we know. Everything that happens under such circumstances??

Voted4Reagan

06-19-2013, 07:05 PM

Two words for you...

Apollo 13

Houston.....We Have a Problem

revelarts

06-19-2013, 07:25 PM

Can you tell what happened exactly from a distance of 10 miles out and 3 miles high in the middle of the night?

I think 182 people can tell better than the FBI, NTSB etc can, after the fact, and who WEREN'T THERE and DIDN'T SEE IT.

all the other issues are point less. they don't DISPROVE what the witnesses say.
you say you know better than them all. including the military pilots in a helicopter.

I went out for football one year and my father came to practice one day about a week afterwards to watch. i walked home as usual and once there he said that I wasn't there. That he'd been at the practice and he didn't see me. I didn't see him either but i believed him. But it took a looong time for me to convince him i was there though. Why, Because HE didn't see me. Did that mean I wasn't there? He was an adult with good eyes he should have known his own son right? Should have known where i was. I had to be lying. but i wasn't, he just got it wrong.

Use the evidence you have not what you don't. 182 saw a streak, what officials etc didn't see or supposedly didn't have available is fine but doesn't negate the evidence of those who did.
We then make the best , MOST LIKELY, conclusions on the info you have.

BTW I've never said that it had to be military bomb or missile. I don't think I've ever said what the source was.
But of course the military never lies either so we know there were no military vessels in the area. no problem your right V4R.

jimnyc

06-19-2013, 08:07 PM

eyewitnesses

182 witnesses but the FBI knows what they REALLY saw... what they REALLY saw was...
OK
whatever u say chief

I think there were MORE witnesses than that who claimed to have SEEN bombs going off at the WTC's, or a missile hitting the Pentagon or an airliner being shot out of the sky in Pennsylvania.

jimnyc

06-19-2013, 08:09 PM

Rev, you also posted ballistic reports earlier, which was linked to at ntsbwatch.com, which is a non-functional site. How much can I go off of on a report from a 'company' or group that is now gone? I'm not saying they weren't legit, but I wouldn't rely on much from them if they disappeared.

jimnyc

06-19-2013, 08:17 PM

I think 182 people can tell better than the FBI, NTSB etc can, after the fact, and who WEREN'T THERE and DIDN'T SEE IT.

Not even close. The human eye from miles and miles away - versus the best analysts, investigators, data boxes, radar...

None of those agencies were there for 9/11 either, and I have more than one person telling me that what I saw WITH MY OWN EYES was actually a hologram! Not you, but people believe this.

Should we also discount the people who saw the explosion from a distance and said they saw no streak of light, but until after the explosion?

Anyway, when these guys release the proof they claim, I'm sure their data can be peer reviewed by other professionals not associated with the Feds and come up with a consensus. But I'm sure not going to dismiss 4 years of evidence gathering and an investigation, at least not without irrefutable proof. These same guys claimed shenanigans from another downed airliner in New York, and then nothing.

revelarts

06-19-2013, 09:59 PM

I think there were MORE witnesses than that who claimed to have SEEN bombs going off at the WTC's, or a missile hitting the Pentagon or an airliner being shot out of the sky in Pennsylvania.
you think wrong about the pentagon, buuut your just trying to smear me again.
And since your changing the subject and not dealing with the points directly, maybe some facts are gettting to you. for you to stoop to this again.

Rev, you also posted ballistic reports earlier, which was linked to at ntsbwatch.com, which is a non-functional site. How much can I go off of on a report from a 'company' or group that is now gone? I'm not saying they weren't legit, but I wouldn't rely on much from them if they disappeared.:rolleyes:
I reposted the link and you didn't sign up to get it the whole 9 pages to read. Why should i spoon feed you info you seem not to want to look at anyway.

And the group has some of the same folks that are working on the documentary that you plan to ignore unless they give you info before hand , but when someone points you to the info you won't take the time to get it for yourself.

And Jim, if an independent group made a technical report on an event and disbanded why or how does that discount the facts of the report or make them suspect? they are not a gov't agency, or a university, just people with various expertise interested in the event. Are they suppose to stay together until your satisfied or sumthin? what are you saying?

you say your ready to hear proof, but it seems like your ready to find just about any excuse NOT hear or read anything.
sounds like
"if they don't put it my lap, just the way i like it with a bow i won't even listen.."

Not even close. The human eye from miles and miles away - versus the best analysts, investigators, data boxes, radar...
None of those agencies were there for 9/11 either, and I have more than one person telling me that what I saw WITH MY OWN EYES was actually a hologram! Not you, but people believe this.
So it was a Hologram? man that's reaching
A Hologram, lol, Ok
Well in most cases eyewitnesses are thought to be pretty good. especially when military guys see something of a military bent most think they have some credibility.
But your saying that 180+ people are just WRONG and the gov't experts (-that you haven't sighted-quotes please from original reports please thanks-) are just all flat wrong? You believe the guberment, no one else really knew what they saw, until the gov't experts told them?

Should we also discount the people who saw the explosion from a distance and said they saw no streak of light, but until after the explosion?
No, we discount no one, But When my family and i went for a drive the other day i saw a deer on the roadside, neither my wife or daughter saw it, so I must be mistaken right?

Anyway, when these guys release the proof they claim, I'm sure their data can be peer reviewed by other professionals not associated with the Feds and come up with a consensus. But I'm sure not going to dismiss 4 years of evidence gathering and an investigation, at least not without irrefutable proof. These same guys claimed shenanigans from another downed airliner in New York, and then nothing.

raising the bar,
peer reviewed, consensus, Irrefutable proof LOL!

always Irrefutable proof with you against gov't claims.
what about beyond reasonable doubt?

Look i'm playing devils advocate here. i really don't know what happen, most of things i've post here today I've found today myself. I've known that people have questioned it and run across bits and piece but I'm not really up on the details of all the claims and counter claims.

But I always want to know a IRREFUTABLE reason why i should not believe Eyewittenesses. that's the 1st line of inquiry in my book. Eye wittnesses usually have ZERO to gain by bucking any gov't claim. 182 Eyewitnesses are a LOT of EYEBALLS. I don't care what 4 years or research says, if they DISCOUNT those witnesses or can't give an IRREFUTABLE alternative explanation. I'm going to question the gov'ts story.

Does that mean I have all the answers. heck NO. but I do know the the gov't answers are shaky, and they are likely to have more reasons to lie or fudge than the eyewitnesses do.

the other discrepancies in radar info,
And the lack of an official "spark" to the explosion just adds fuel to fire.

it doesn't past the smell test for me Jim. sorry. You stick with the gov't story until they tell you what else to think. that's fine.
I'll see what everyone (including the gov't, They don't lie ALL of the time) has to say and see what stinks less.

But we may never know what the real deal is on this one.

Marcus Aurelius

06-19-2013, 10:20 PM

regarding eyewitnesses in general...

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html

Australian eyewitness expert Donald Thomson appeared on a live TV discussion about the unreliability of eyewitness memory. He was later arrested, placed in a lineup and identified by a victim as the man who had raped her. The police charged Thomson although the rape had occurred at the time he was on TV. They dismissed his alibi that he was in plain view of a TV audience and in the company of the other discussants, including an assistant commissioner of police. The policeman taking his statement sneered, "Yes, I suppose you've got Jesus Christ, and the Queen of England, too." Eventually, the investigators discovered that the rapist had attacked the woman as she was watching TV - the very program on which Thompson had appeared. Authorities eventually cleared Thomson. The woman had confused the rapist's face with the face that she had seen on TV.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.

While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/29/140039620/reliability-of-eyewitness-testimony-under-scrutiny

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm

The DNA revolution that began in the late 1980s has dramatically demonstrated how utterly unreliable eyewitness identifications are. About 200 people convicted of violent crimes have been exonerated by DNA evidence in the past two decades. About 80 percent have been the victims of eyewitness misidentification. Some of them served even more time in prison than Tillman.

Even more disturbing are the results of the FBI's DNA analysis of biological specimens in 10,000 cases from 1989 to 1996.
These were all cases in which eyewitnesses had identified a suspect who had been arrested for the crime (usually sexual assault) and biological material from the perpetrator was available for comparison with the suspect's. In 20 percent of the cases, no conclusive results could be obtained. In the remaining 8,000 cases, however, the suspect was cleared in 2,000, or 25 percent. Assuming that without DNA evidence half of these defendants would have been convicted, then as many as 12 percent of those convicted in disputed eyewitness cases may be innocent.

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/~glwells/Wells_articles_pdf/Eyewitness_Testimony_Ann_Rev.pdf

These are the tip of the iceberg.

Gaffer

06-19-2013, 10:26 PM

jimnyc

06-19-2013, 10:30 PM

you think wrong about the pentagon, buuut your just trying to smear me again.

No point even replying to your conspiracy filled rant of nonsense. MANY people tried claiming that it was a missile that hit the pentagon and not the airliner. I debated someone here in the one on one forum and that was even his claim a long time back. Not once did I mention or try to claim you said ANYTHING I posted. I was merely pointing out that all kinds of erroneous and outlandish claims were made about 9/11 that you are pointing out about witnesses in this event. But you can't make it past a single sentence without losing sight of comprehension and blaming me for smearing you? And that I'm "stooping" to something? LOL Get a grip. Maybe there IS a reason you read something I mention about cuckoos, and somehow think it was directed at you individually.

Sorry if I wait for all the facts to come out with this supposed proof they have, and don't take it as actual 'proof' without review first. That hardly means I allow the government to tell me how to think, like you ridiculously claim. It means I prefer to have ALL the facts available, reviews them and make logical conclusions. Not everyone that isn't an anti-government nutter is automatically in the bag for the government. More like some like to employ common sense, apply facts, dismiss bullshit and find the truth amongst all of it. You and your ilk? Doesn't matter, so long as the end result is anti-government.

jimnyc

06-19-2013, 10:31 PM

I'm thinking meteor. Streak of light followed by big explosion. Impact of fuel tank area would cause a big explosion. A one in a billion occurrence. Are they covering up? or just unable to find the answers, and speculating.

But these guys claim they have "proof". And there were witnesses. Doesn't that prove to you that it was a missile? :rolleyes:

revelarts

06-20-2013, 02:25 AM

No point even replying to your conspiracy filled rant of nonsense.
one sentence in reply to your comment on missiles into the pentagon is a rant?

MANY people tried claiming that it was a missile that hit the pentagon and not the airliner. I debated someone here in the one on one forum and that was even his claim a long time back. Not once did I mention or try to claim you said ANYTHING I posted. I was merely pointing out that all kinds of erroneous and outlandish claims were made about 9/11 that you are pointing out about witnesses in this event. But you can't make it past a single sentence without losing sight of comprehension and blaming me for smearing you? And that I'm "stooping" to something? LOL Get a grip. Maybe there IS a reason you read something I mention about cuckoos, and somehow think it was directed at you individually.

eyewitnesses
182 witnesses but the FBI knows what they REALLY saw... what they REALLY saw was...
OK
whatever u say chief

I think there were MORE witnesses than that who claimed to have SEEN bombs going off at the WTC's, or a missile hitting the Pentagon or an airliner being shot out of the sky in Pennsylvania.
why would anyone think a comment is directed at them.. when they are quoted... and a text is written in response to part of their post?
i better get the gov't to confirm it with radar and experts though, before i consider what i read above is real, or that it might be directed at me, or be about conspiracies. it may be hologram or something. :poke:

Marcus's post about the unreliability of Eyewitnesses was a serious reply, but the 9-11 thing was just a dismissive dig, void of content. even if you may not have meant it that way. as i mentioned even your facts were wrong there. if you were serious at least get some facts to back up the claim just don't throw out "I THINK there were more...blah blah... missile... airliner shot down.." you know that was BS diggery Jim.

Sorry if I wait for all the facts to come out with this supposed proof they have, and don't take it as actual 'proof' without review first. That hardly means I allow the government to tell me how to think, like you ridiculously claim. It means I prefer to have ALL the facts available, reviews them and make logical conclusions. Not everyone that isn't an anti-government nutter is automatically in the bag for the government. More like some like to employ common sense, apply facts, dismiss bullshit and find the truth amongst all of it. You and your ilk? Doesn't matter, so long as the end result is anti-government.
well i included several links with info from the group, so you can see, if not, ALL of the facts available plenty.
Employ your common sense etc..
But lets not assume that you DON"T have a slight PRO Gov't Bais Jim, mixed in with common sense, applying facts, etc etc...
Irrefutable proof being the only thing that will change your mind about official reports. so when you have that, Irrefutable proof. you'll of course change your position. :poke:
We anti-government nutters just need reasonable doubt, mixed in with common sense, applying facts, etc etc...

jimnyc

06-20-2013, 06:26 AM

Sorry, Rev, but again you don't comprehend. You made a point about 182 witnesses. I followed with the fact that there were witnesses that claimed holograms near the WTC, thousands claim they saw bombs go off, tons thought a missile hit the pentagon and many thought they saw a missile take out an airliner in Pennsylvania that day. My point was that people "see" things during tragedies. I don't think there was a hologram, a missile or a fighter jet taking down an airliner on 9/11, but that didn't stop people from claiming to have seen those things. My point was solely to counter YOUR point abut so many "witnesses". But of course, you change the thread to be something directed at you.

If you said "there were 182 witnesses..." and I replied with "There were a total of 4239 witnesses on 9/11" - is that a comment directed AT you or a comment directed ABOUT you? That's right, it was simply a comment directed at you in reply to your very own comment. Never once did I claim what I was writing were YOUR stances. I never even mentioned you in those comparisons.

You took my comparison about how there were other witnesses in major events, and twisted it to make it sound as if I was making fun of you, or stooping to some sort of level. There is nothing "dismissive" whatsoever by making a comparison to another major set of plane crashes and witnesses.

With that aside, funny that you'll take blurbs about these flights and certainly not undeniable proof, and treat it as if it's now fact and the version we've been told is false. You also pretty much already deny any type of defense/response that might be forthcoming to these guys, whether that be from the government or from peer reviewed experts. My stance is that the 4 year report from the government agencies and other experts is pretty damn convincing - but I'm willing to read more intelligence and other information that comes out, and perhaps change my position based on that information. The fact that I don't instantly accept it, or that I question it at this time, makes you scoff and state that I believe anything the government tells me. That's ridiculous and no different than the others that label one another liberals when they disagree with a political stance of theirs.

I've disagreed and currently disagree with the government on more stances than I can remember or count. I think they lied, or are lying, about events around Benghazi, the IRS, Fast Furious, NSA recordings & hacking of reporters. Those are things simply off of the top of my head from the very recent memory of mine. And while you likely have a similar view of me regarding 9/11, I'd bet my left testicle that I have read more data and reports than anyone here about 9/11. I admit I had a unhealthy obsession with data and facts about that day, and read and read and read and read as much as I could. My stances are on a LOT of data. My stance is the same regarding flights 587 and flight 800. I've read enough from many, many sources and I think the details and facts laid out are very reasonable. I have zero doubt at this point to not believe those version of events.

And like I said, I am willing to read more into any new details revealed - so long as I don't have to pay to read a book or have to tune into a TV show to get simple facts. No one will "benefit" from me having to get simple facts about a tragedy. You get upset that I point out this "NTSB Watch" is so reliable, that they no longer exist and the link was invalid. Then you offer an alternative link, but one where only a single page is available and one must register to read the rest. For your sake, I will register after this post. I assume if there was anything incredibly convincing in that PDF file that you would have posted it, but I'll go ahead and register. But I'm not going to simply dismiss a 4 year investigation because these guys claim it was all a lie. The first thing they should do is release the names of those who wouldn't let them talk. I find it hard to believe that they were ALL told this, and none of it was recorded in any way. Even if it weren't, still no reason to have already named names. Who specifically and what specifically were they told not to discuss. Do they have solid data in hand to disprove other data? They said they had "proof". This would mean they have enough evidence to establish something as true.

revelarts

06-20-2013, 08:00 AM

jimnyc

06-20-2013, 08:46 AM

Jim, I'll take you at your word on 9-11 comments. I'll say i jumped to conclusions. maybe the last time when you did dismiss my comments by assuming conspiracy talk made me a bit oversensitive.
My mistake.

ANd as i mentioned before i don't know what happened to flight 800, but the gov't report stinks to me . you say 4 years of research is good enough for you , until further notice. that's fine. We all have our own standards.
but i think my points on the groups disbandment etc stand , you say your open to facts. OK. it just seems to me if your honestly open to the facts that you wouldn't dismiss them BEFORE you read or hear then because the access is inconvenient. No one says you have to believe it before you see it. but to question it solely on your lack of personal access to it seems , well IMO seems less than open minded. I don't get that.
BTW i did get the file last night and as i said I didn't feel like posting it. not because of it's content, i just skimmed it. it fairly technical. Frankly I'm not THAT interested. to me this is a tragedy and a mystery. WHere the Gov't seems to be withholding information at the least. It appears to be a crime of sorts, I'm not sure how big of one though. I just don't know. But in the larger context of my "anti-government" positions this is of far less consequence than, the NSA issue, the iraq war horror, the loss of liberty under the pretext of 9-11 and an overhyped but selectively dangerous alqeada and muslims threat. the growing overreach of the police, feds to local level.
800 is a tragedy all around and i don't completely discount the feds reports, but I say the counter claims are very interesting and the official story doesn't pass the smell test.

Heck Gaffers Meteor story has some merit, at least it trys to incorporate the eye wittnesses accounts of a "streak" moving at great speed. there are other flaws but it's better that the offical idea that what they saw was the plane itself. people KNOW a planes relative speed rising, and it's not that fast, no matter what distance or angle, in the dark or light.

So hey imo it's still very much a mystery.

I never said that 4 years of research was good enough, but rather that it's hard to dismiss such an investigation without some overwhelming proof. I'm willing to look at any new data/facts, but I won't read a short blurb and dismiss 4 years of investigations. I don't dismiss them before seeing/reading them. I'm more than happy to read and investigate more when available. Me not wanting to share personal information with a website in order to read an article, or to have to watch a 2 hour documentary in order to see more facts, does nothing to say I am "dismissing" the facts before hand, just that I won't be going that route. I'm confident there will be coverage in the internet as this goes along and when it comes, I will do my own research. Not joining a website or watching a TV show, in no way at all means I am closed minded. I don't need fancy music and leading discussions to tell me what happened. I saw the same crap with loose change documentary. All kinds of spooky music and dramatic recreations - and in the end I wasted my time watching that crap "documentary" which was extremely shy on facts.

A mystery perhaps. A lack of understanding perhaps. Maybe it's difficult for all of us to comprehend, being a first and all. There are lots of reason to be hesitant and question. But where we differ is in WHEN we transition from distrust, to seemingly making a factual claim that something is wrong or a lie. I won't make that transition until I have had a chance to investigate and read facts. The same as I won't come to conclusions the day it happened, and waited for more and more facts to come out over the years. But waiting for those facts, desiring those facts, and actually demanding those facts before I make our government/military complicit - in no way means I am a sheep and listen to whatever the government says I you like to imply at times. I question our government as much as the average Joe. I just try to do so on a logical and fact based level.

Marcus Aurelius

07-03-2013, 08:06 AM

Apparently, not so much on the ordinance explosions outside the plane.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/02/twa-800-accident-say-investigators/?test=latestnews

Current and former federal officials who played key roles in the investigation of one of the nation's worst aviation disasters said Tuesday they stand by their conclusion that the explosion of TWA flight 800 was caused by overheated fuel tank vapors, and not a bomb or missile.

Joseph Kolly, the current director of the board's Office of Research and Engineering, was the chief fire and explosives investigator on the flight 800 investigation. He said he is "absolutely" certain the fuel tank was the cause. "We went to the `nth' degree, and then some," he said, laying out the different facets of the investigation. In their search for clues, investigators tested shoulder-fired missiles to see if they would show up on radar and used another 747 to replicate the overheating of fuel tank vapors, among other tests.

Other former NTSB officials involved in the investigation who were not at the briefing have also defended its handling, describing the investigation as one of the most extensive and exhaustive in the board's history. The board issued a 400-page report on the accident, accompanied by more than 17,000 pages of supporting material.

But officials at the briefing and other former NTSB investigators said an examination of witness statements showed that what people thought might be a missile was actually the trajectory of the plane after the fiery explosion, the force of which broke off some pieces of the aircraft while much of the remainder of the plane was propelled up and forward, before plunging into the ocean.
Witnesses "legitimately saw flames coming down and everything else, and explosions, but it occurred after the initial center fuel tank explosion," Tom Haueter, who recently retired as head of NTSB's aviation office and was a senior investigator during the flight 800 investigation, said in an interview.

Voted4Reagan

07-03-2013, 08:22 AM

Time to flush this TRUTHER TURD down the CONSPIRACY CRAPPER.

Marcus Aurelius

07-03-2013, 09:36 AM

Time to flush this TRUTHER TURD down the CONSPIRACY CRAPPER.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_m6aJOwGpyfI/TAOoFuztZ6I/AAAAAAAAHCM/yvAsdQ61Ze4/s320/tales+from+the+crapper.jpg

Little-Acorn

07-03-2013, 09:51 AM

Robert A Whit

07-03-2013, 10:26 AM

So, exactly what new "facts" and "proof" did these six members of the original investigation team, present to "prove" that there were "one or more ordnance explosions outside the aircraft"?

And what new refutation did other present to refute them?

Saying "No, it didn't, we were right the first time" doesn't refute new facts... IF the six presented new facts. Did they? If not, will they?

I do not get that channel in my cable TV package and hope those who watch it can comment.

I forgot this but think that today I shall try to find out if any other aircraft has exploded this way due to a short in a fuel tank.

Like your car, a low voltage sensor is in the tank so we know the remaining fuel level. But on a 747, it boggles the imagination that something like this could take place.

I can't speak for cars but do know how very careful they are in making airplanes and how hard the engineers work to make them safe.

Voted4Reagan

07-03-2013, 10:44 AM

I do not get that channel in my cable TV package and hope those who watch it can comment.

I forgot this but think that today I shall try to find out if any other aircraft has exploded this way due to a short in a fuel tank.

Like your car, a low voltage sensor is in the tank so we know the remaining fuel level. But on a 747, it boggles the imagination that something like this could take place.

I can't speak for cars but do know how very careful they are in making airplanes and how hard the engineers work to make them safe.

At a 3 percent concentration with an internal tank Temperature of 125 degrees, That plane was a flying BOMB. it was well inside the Explosive limit for Jet Fuel.

Even if the Percentage of Vapor was half that... it still would have exploded.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_04/textonly/s01txt.html

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_04/s/s01/art/fig1.gif

Marcus Aurelius

07-03-2013, 10:45 AM

I do not get that channel in my cable TV package and hope those who watch it can comment.

I forgot this but think that today I shall try to find out if any other aircraft has exploded this way due to a short in a fuel tank.

Like your car, a low voltage sensor is in the tank so we know the remaining fuel level. But on a 747, it boggles the imagination that something like this could take place.

I can't speak for cars but do know how very careful they are in making airplanes and how hard the engineers work to make them safe.

It may boggle lesser minds like yours, but the vast majority of the investigators are convinced of the cause of the crash, and they've produce reams of paperwork backing them up. However, if lesser minds like yours want to believe a documentary made by a bunch of conspiracy nutjobs, be my guest.

aboutime

07-03-2013, 10:50 AM

It may boggle lesser minds like yours, but the vast majority of the investigators are convinced of the cause of the crash, and they've produce reams of paperwork backing them up. However, if lesser minds like yours want to believe a documentary made by a bunch of conspiracy nutjobs, be my guest.

Marcus. Just wondering how long it will be till another

Zapruder film on this topic will show up???
http://youtu.be/jWHdEeHNbXY

Robert A Whit

07-03-2013, 10:50 AM

Marcus, we all know you are an asshole.

What made you this way?

You post as if you come from a very troubled past.

aboutime

07-03-2013, 10:52 AM

Marcus, we all know you are an asshole.

What made you this way?

You post as if you come from a very troubled past.

Robert. Gotta admire your ability to cause threads to end up in the CAGE!

Voted4Reagan

07-03-2013, 11:00 AM

Another thread destined for the Cage.... because certain whitless individuals start Name Calling

Marcus Aurelius

07-03-2013, 11:00 AM

Marcus, we all know you are an asshole.

What made you this way?

You post as if you come from a very troubled past.

please stick to the topic and stop trying to derail the thread.

Robert A Whit

07-03-2013, 11:02 AM

Marcus, I will happily stick to topics.

But stop making me the topic.

Capice?

aboutime

07-03-2013, 11:06 AM

Marcus, I will happily stick to topics.

But stop making me the topic.

Capice?

Robert. Really? So you were calling YOURSELF the asshole? You created that topic. Happy to stick to it...just for you.

Robert A Whit

07-03-2013, 11:09 AM

Robert. Really? So you were calling YOURSELF the asshole? You created that topic. Happy to stick to it...just for you.

No I am not. Were you mentioned by anybody? Isn't it true you could have sat this one out?

Marcus Aurelius

07-03-2013, 11:10 AM

Marcus, I will happily stick to topics.

But stop making me the topic.

Capice?

For a man who claims I'm on ignore, you sure respond quickly when you feel slighted:laugh2:

Your poor understanding of the topic is certainly within bounds, and I corrected you. Sue me.

aboutime

07-03-2013, 11:12 AM

No I am not. Were you mentioned by anybody? Isn't it true you could have sat this one out?

5198 Never sit out a Party.

Robert A Whit

07-03-2013, 11:48 AM

Your poor understanding of the topic is certainly within bounds, and I corrected you. Sue me.

Actually you did not.

Marcus Aurelius

07-03-2013, 01:35 PM

Actually you did not.

If that helps you sleep at night...

Robert A Whit

07-03-2013, 02:14 PM

Another thread destined for the Cage.... because certain whitless individuals start Name Calling

No, that was started by Marcus.

Little-Acorn

07-03-2013, 06:07 PM

Marcus Aurelius

07-03-2013, 07:59 PM

(sigh)

Another thread hijacked principally by Marcus.

I'm starting to wonder if there's any point in posting in this forum any more. It used to be one of the best forums on the net.

Marcus, please stop.

Stop whining. I've made 8 posts in this thread (not counting this one). 4 were dead on topic, 2 were off topic responses to other posts, and 2 were smacking down Robert for derailing the thread. If you think I derailed the thread, complain and let the moderating team decide if this should be Caged, or if I deserve a thread ban.

Personally, I think you're just upset I believe the majority of the evidence and the majority of the investigators regarding what caused TWA 800 to go down.

Live with it.

Marcus Aurelius

07-03-2013, 08:08 PM

http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/fly-wire/why-twa-flight-800-documentary-wrong

I've watched “TWA Flight 800” — the much-hyped Epix original documentary that purports to present “new” evidence proving that a missile attack brought down the Paris-bound Boeing 747 over the Atlantic 17 years ago this month. Yesterday I interviewed Hank Hughes, the former NTSB investigator who, the filmmakers say, is “breaking his silence” to blow the whistle on a vast government cover up. Here is why the film and Hughes are wrong.

I'll try to keep the spoilers to a minimum, but suffice it to say there’s really nothing new in the film — although the filmmakers go to great lengths to make it seem that way. The biggest surprise in the documentary is the claim that not one but three missiles downed TWA Flight 800. According to the theory, two missiles rose from the ocean while a third was fired from Long Island’s Patchogue Bay.

The supposed “smoking gun” that proves the missile theory is a tiny blip of primary radar data that the filmmakers say shows debris blasting from the 747 at a speed in excess of Mach 4 — far faster than would be possible if an explosion of the center fuel tank alone caused the airplane to break apart. What’s strange about this blockbuster claim is that the filmmakers spend just three and a half minutes of the hour and a half film discussing the suspicious radar signature. If this truly was the hard evidence that proved the theory that a missile (or three missiles, as they say) downed TWA Flight 800, shouldn’t this facet of the story have been featured more prominently?

Instead, much of the film focuses on the stories of eyewitnesses, who recall seeing something that looked like a flare or "cheap fireworks" streaking through the sky toward TWA Flight 800 just before it exploded. This is apparently how the filmmakers arrive at the conclusion that three missiles brought down the 747. There were so many different versions of what people saw, from so many vantage points, that a lone-missile theory couldn’t possibly explain the inconsistencies. So there must have been multiple missiles.

You can read the rest for yourselves. However, I'd like to remind everyone about the eyewitness post I made earlier in this thread, and how they are universally unreliable.

Marcus Aurelius

07-03-2013, 08:16 PM

I find it comical that Hank Hughes, the 'documentary ' producer, claims in the last link I posted that the government placed explosives on the tank to ensure it blew up... then claims here that "It was either a terrorist attack that they wanted to ignore, or an accident as a result of a military operation that went wrong".

How could it be both the government purposely blowing it up, AND the result of a government operation gone wrong? Simple... it couldn't.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/3-reasons-to-doubt-the-twa-flight-800-conspiracy-theory-15629315

"It was either a terrorist attack that they wanted to ignore, or an accident as a result of a military operation that went wrong," Hank Hughes, a former National Transportation Safety Board investigator and driving force behind the film, told ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/twa-flight-800-cover-theorists-fire/story?id=19444898#).

aboutime

07-03-2013, 08:21 PM

we are all in ......5199 !!!!!!!!!

Marcus Aurelius

07-03-2013, 08:25 PM

This is what brought TWA 800 down...

http://moonraking.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/the-twilight-zone-nightmare-at-20000-feet-bob-wilson-12.jpg

aboutime

07-03-2013, 09:06 PM

This is what brought TWA 800 down...

http://moonraking.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/the-twilight-zone-nightmare-at-20000-feet-bob-wilson-12.jpg

Look out! That's De Icer Man!

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-03-2013, 09:06 PM

Heck Gaffers Meteor story has some merit, at least it trys to incorporate the eye wittnesses accounts of a "streak" moving at great speed. there are other flaws but it's better that the offical idea that what they saw was the plane itself. people KNOW a planes relative speed rising, and it's not that fast, no matter what distance or angle, in the dark or light.

So hey imo it's still very much a mystery. Gaffer saw a UFO? YOU KNOW BACK IN MY YOUNGER WILD DAYS OF DRINKING AND PARTYING I SAW A FEW MYSELF. ;) Ok, seriously now, a meteorite striking an aircraft could and would do grave damage depending upon its size, the speed is wickedly fast and that can not be taken lightly. Could easily bring down an aircraft. -Tyr

Gaffer

07-03-2013, 10:40 PM

Gaffer saw a UFO? YOU KNOW BACK IN MY YOUNGER WILD DAYS OF DRINKING AND PARTYING I SAW A FEW MYSELF. ;) Ok, seriously now, a meteorite striking an aircraft could and would do grave damage depending upon its size, the speed is wickedly fast and that can not be taken lightly. Could easily bring down an aircraft. -Tyr

Putting words in my mouth huh? :poke: :slap:

Actual I have seen a couple of UFO's. Unidentified flying objects. I have no idea what they were.

aboutime

07-04-2013, 05:40 PM

Putting words in my mouth huh? :poke: :slap:

Actual I have seen a couple of UFO's. Unidentified flying objects. I have no idea what they were.

Gaffer. Back, during those days when I was drinking, and not worried about how much, or what the label said. I remember seeing dozens of UFO's all the time.
In fact. Almost every time I reached my limit...and nobody knew what that was then. I saw UFO's that were never Identified...ever.

Robert A Whit

07-04-2013, 06:14 PM

Gaffer. Back, during those days when I was drinking, and not worried about how much, or what the label said. I remember seeing dozens of UFO's all the time.
In fact. Almost every time I reached my limit...and nobody knew what that was then. I saw UFO's that were never Identified...ever.

maybe you were drinking jet fuel since you are the first person I know of that gets so drunk you see objects flying around that you can't figure out what they are.

aboutime

07-04-2013, 06:19 PM

maybe you were drinking jet fuel since you are the first person I know of that gets so drunk you see objects flying around that you can't figure out what they are.

Sure thing. Whatever you say.

Robert A Whit

07-04-2013, 06:50 PM

Sure thing. Whatever you say.

Actually it was whatever you say.

Marcus Aurelius

07-04-2013, 09:20 PM

maybe you were drinking jet fuel since you are the first person I know of that gets so drunk you see objects flying around that you can't figure out what they are.

off topic. stop trying to derail the thread

Robert A Whit

07-04-2013, 11:54 PM

Marcus Aurelius

07-05-2013, 12:08 AM

He took the path so I followed.

Stop derailing the thread... take it to the cage... you should be thread banned.

Robert A Whit

07-05-2013, 06:19 PM

Scrotum face

You of all posters do not belong here

Stop accusing me of what About time did.

aboutime

07-05-2013, 06:22 PM

Scrotum face

You of all posters do not belong here

Stop accusing me of what About time did.

Excuse us "Your Dickheadedness!"

Some people get really old, but their brain never grows up.

Which will you choose Robert?

Robert A Whit

07-05-2013, 07:16 PM

Excuse us "Your Dickheadedness!"

Some people get really old, but their brain never grows up.

Which will you choose Robert?

A great report on how you are as a poster. Nice job. Isn't this amusing? You still laughing?

aboutime

07-05-2013, 07:46 PM

A great report on how you are as a poster. Nice job. Isn't this amusing? You still laughing?

Using Sarah Palin's expression...if you don't mind. In response to your question. "YOU BETCHA!"

revelarts

07-11-2013, 05:24 PM

http://press.epixhd.com/programming/twa-flight-800/

For anyone interested take a look at the clips from the documentary.
the trailer -Clip 1- is the longest. some of them are only a sentence.

Taken together compelling IMO.

from trailer "... the next day the FBI told me i saw nothing..."
not much research before the FBI knew what happened.

revelarts

07-24-2013, 09:44 PM

my daughter and i just watched the film on epix on demand.
i think you can sign up for a free trail to watch films online.
it's well worth the time.
if your interested in hearing from some of the investigators on site , what they found, and looking at radar evidence, and hearing eye witness testimonies.
It was produced by a former CBS news producer.
very well done extremely informative.

if your interested

Marcus Aurelius

07-24-2013, 10:34 PM

Kathianne

07-24-2013, 10:51 PM

I'm interested. This story never set right in my mind. NTSB has reserved the right to review and reopen an investigation, my guess is they will if there is interest in it.

http://longisland.news12.com/news/fall-of-twa-flight-800-scars-and-questions-remain-on-17th-anniversary-1.5692603

Marcus Aurelius

07-25-2013, 07:04 AM

http://freebeacon.com/ntsb-clears-up-twa-800-conspiracy-theory/

Investigators explain 17-year-old explosion of Paris-bound flight. Again.

Investigators from six countries, 19 federal agencies, two aviation companies and two labor unions retrieved 5,000 pieces of evidence from the Atlantic. Two agencies, the National Transportation Safety Board and FBI, conducted exhaustive investigations into the cause of the crash of Flight 800, as well as possible terrorism. The FBI ruled out terrorism in 1997.
Three years later the NTSB revealed in a 400-page report that the crash was likely caused by a short circuit that ignited fuel vapors in the center wing tank, which delivers excess heat from air conditioning units out of the plane. The explosion, which occurred 11 minutes into the flight, separated the nose of the plane from the cabin, lifting it into the air before bursting into flames and nose-diving into the ocean.

“There is no evidence of high energy penetration [missile strike] … it’s very clear to us that this was a central wing tank explosion and not anything else.”

“It’s just evident to me that this explosion happened internally; it’s pure physics,” Hurb said.
“The NTSB has been exceptional to family members and I’m here today to show them support,” Ziemkiewicz said. “We have to close the curtain on all of this [conspiracy] nonsense.

Marcus Aurelius

07-25-2013, 07:10 AM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2013/06/22/latest-twa-800-conspiracy-theory-how-likely-is-it/

I was personally involved on-scene in the accident investigation and spent many, many hours over the course of four years reviewing data and wreckage from the aircraft. If an explosion had occurred outside the aircraft while it was in flight, aircraft damage inside the aircraft would have shown a pattern of blast fragments coming from outside the aircraft. Aircraft debris from inside the fuselage did not contain evidence of such an explosion. Nor did the aircraft skin around the fuselage. This skin is relatively thin and easy to damage and would have shown evidence of an explosion.

While this latest analysis looks at one very small part of the radar data, it fails to account for the fact that none of the radar data shows any missiles [see below].

To reconcile the various eyewitness accounts, the documentary makes the preposterous charge that not one, but three missiles were launched on the night of July 17, 1996 and exploded near the TWA 800 aircraft. While the film claims to have the radar data from five different locations surrounding the accident site, it has no radar evidence to support any missile launch, let alone two or three.

It’s hard to imagine that three missiles large enough to get to 13,800 feet (the altitude of the aircraft just before it broke up in flight) would not show up on radar. During the course of the NTSB’s investigation, I reviewed the radar data with NTSB experts and was convinced that no missile traces at all were on the radar. Not one missile trace was ever found on the radar data and the film makes no claim that missile traces exist on the radar.

The film ignores significant physical evidence that the center fuel tank exploded. More specifically, the evidence indicates that the fuel tank over-pressurized, tore apart significant wing structure and ejected pieces from inside the fuel tank. Those inner fuel tank pieces were found in the “red” debris field – that is the debris field closest to JFK, where the aircraft took off, indicating that the fuel tank pieces were among the first pieces to leave the aircraft. The aircraft fuel tank and surrounding floor and ceiling debris show metal pieces bowed consistent with extreme pressure from inside the fuel tank.

During the entire four years of the NTSB investigation of TWA 800, no one – including Hank Hughes ( petitioner and former NTSB investigator) – ever came to me and claimed that evidence was being tampered with or covered up. Mr. Hughes worked for me for a short time at the NTSB right before the TWA accident. During the investigation, he spoke with me about a number of issues related to the investigation, but never about any evidence tampering or any conspiracy to cover-up findings.

Nothing in the petition or film, when viewed against the totality of the accident investigation, warrants the time and expense of the NTSB re-opening an investigation that was as thorough and extensive as any accident investigation in the NTSB’s history.

revelarts

07-25-2013, 07:20 AM

Marcus Aurelius

07-25-2013, 07:27 AM

Kathianne

07-25-2013, 07:33 AM

linked article doesn't say anything that has not been refuted dozens of times already. Nothing new.

I don't see a problem 'with nothing new.' As I remember from the time, all reports said the debris field was scattered far further than would be expected under the circumstances arrived at by NTSB's explanation.

What I don't remember are any reports finding the problem in other planes of same make. I don't remember other planes basically blowing up in the sky, due to the problem. No massive recall and correction of problem, so we are to conclude that just one plane had some issue that caused spontaneous combustion?

Marcus Aurelius

07-25-2013, 07:37 AM

http://longisland.news12.com/news/ex-investigators-twa-flight-800-crash-wasn-t-an-accident-1.5518995

funny how the news repoprts don't use the most , striking evidence.
some of the comments of the readers are as interesting as the report.

one commenter that lives in the area says a lady had video that they gave to the local station and was played on local tv . but she's never seen it since.

I know someone who was an eye witness. Said he saw a trajectory hit the plane. He fell off the map shortly after the incident.Wtf???

I had a friend that was part of the crew that loaded the plane, after the crash, he was sequestered and questioned for three days. The story we heard from him was that they were loading plastic 55 gallon drums of a very corrosive liquid, one of the forklifts nicked the side of a drum, and the acid started to leak and was dripping on the wiring, creating toxic fumes and shorting out the wires. He was told never to speak of it, but told us only after being badgered for vanishing for three days, and missing plans that were made. Passenger planes transport all kinds of cargo that you would never want to be near, you just don't know what you are sitting on top of. Wonder why the conspiracy theorists in this never investigated that one? Too wild even for them I guess.

Marcus Aurelius

07-25-2013, 07:40 AM

I don't see a problem 'with nothing new.' As I remember from the time, all reports said the debris field was scattered far further than would be expected under the circumstances arrived at by NTSB's explanation.

What I don't remember are any reports finding the problem in other planes of same make. I don't remember other planes basically blowing up in the sky, due to the problem. No massive recall and correction of problem, so we are to conclude that just one plane had some issue that caused spontaneous combustion?

Shit happens. A defect one one plane doesn't automatically have to be on every plane of that make/model. If a cars gas tank is missing a single bolt holding it in, does that automatically mean that every car of that make/model has the same exact problem? If your chest of drawers from Ikea has one drawer panel without pre-drilled holes for the support rail, does that automatically mean every other piece of that model has the same problem?

Kathianne

07-25-2013, 07:43 AM

Shit happens. A defect one one plane doesn't automatically have to be on every plane of that make/model. If a cars gas tank is missing a single bolt holding it in, does that automatically mean that every car of that make/model has the same exact problem? If your chest of drawers from Ikea has one drawer panel without pre-drilled holes for the support rail, does that automatically mean every other piece of that model has the same problem?

and yet, that 'shit' was never proven in this case. I don't go looking at conspiracy sites, not in my make-up. As I said, from the very beginning, much like Benghazi, this story never played right for me. Too many early reports simply vanished, it became a non-story very quickly. If they problem was a lack of quality control, somehow one thinks that would have become news.

revelarts

07-25-2013, 08:39 AM

no one is.

for someone not interested seems you've taken a fair amount of time trying to find refutations BEFORE watching the film for yourself.

no new evidence?
Maybe not new to you, but i haven't been that interested in this and had just heard the offical reports and a hint of controversy.
things mentioned in the film that were new to me. that somehow never made it in the news reports on the film.

1. the investgators found resude of explosives on the outside of plane parts. confirmed by fbi test and independent testing.

The FBI admitted such Initially and it published in the papers but they changed there minds and later said all that talk was unfounded.
They attempted to say the machines gave false positives but the machines are known to be EXTREMELY reliable. And the NTSB investigators say they were not allowed to test them themselves and the parts in question disappeared.

2. the NTSB investigators say the FBI altered evidence. change tags on parts after the fact, changed parts crash zone locations tags and unnecessarily moved part for testing --risking more contamination in route. "FBI" came into the hanger in the middle of the night and moved wiring and other plane parts around.

3. the eye witnesses are many and varied all with similar stories. a few were in the air. a few were former military who had no question as to what they saw. Many saw an object fly horizontally then go up. Some claimed to be intimidated by the FBI. "you saw nothing." immediately after the event. Others stories were misrepresented in the press and in official reports and explanations. None were allowed to testify at public hearings.

4. the center fuel tank spark has never been explained for sure. it's still Unknown. what could have caused it to exploded? the gas would not exploded without a spark. the official report calls it a unexplained.

5. the official report tries to explain away some of the explosive material found as the result of a bomb sniffing training exercise preformed before the flight took off. However FOI docs show that the explanation is unlikely because the dog trainers say they were on an empty plane shortly before the same plane was known to be full of passengers ready to take off to Paris and it was standard for the pilots to be on long before the passengers.

6. 1 NTSB investigator in the film says he was told to only write a factual report not an analytical one. in every other cased he'd worked for years he did both. he says if he'd been allowed to write one he would have concluded that there was an externally explosion the caused the disaster. Based on the evidence he'd seen, not a center fuel tank explosion.

there's more in the film .. if you want to take time to try to debunk it you should probably watch it.
don't ask me a bunch of questions, why this and why that. and what about aliens blah blah .

make up you own mind. to me what they said is compelling.
the Witnesses say a missile . if it were 5 or 6 i might blow it off. but 200+.
for me that right there is enough.

who did it, i can't say. accident or on purpose i don't know.
But it seems to me at the very least it's a military accident and a gov't cover up.

You can stick to your fuel tank story, fine, I'm not going to try to convince you. you know better.
Everyone else is crazy. and it was a big mass-delusion about the missiles. Mass delusions like that happen all the time right.

Marcus Aurelius

07-25-2013, 09:27 AM

for someone not interested seems you've taken a fair amount of time trying to find refutations BEFORE watching the film for yourself. Did I 'say' I did not watch it? You're ASSuming...as always.

no new evidence? yup
Maybe not new to you, but i haven't been that interested in this and had just heard the offical reports and a hint of controversy.
things mentioned in the film that were new to me. that somehow never made it in the news reports on the film.

1. the investgators found resude of explosives on the outside of plane parts. confirmed by fbi test and independent testing.refuted. trace amounts of a chemical present in anything from the seat cushions to your toothpaste.

The FBI admitted such Initially and it published in the papers but they changed there minds and later said all that talk was unfounded.
They attempted to say the machines gave false positives but the machines are known to be EXTREMELY reliable. Interesting how you say they are extremely reliable when they agree with you, but worthless when they don't.

And the NTSB investigators say they were not allowed to test them themselves and the parts in question disappeared.

2. the NTSB investigators say the FBI altered evidence. change tags on parts after the fact, changed parts crash zone locations tags and unnecessarily moved part for testing --risking more contamination in route. "FBI" came into the hanger in the middle of the night and moved wiring and other plane parts around. Refuted. GPS coordinated of debris locations was never altered, even according to your mockumentary. GPS is more accurate than colored location flags.

3. the eye witnesses are many and varied all with similar stories. a few were in the air. a few were former military who had no question as to what they saw. Many saw an object fly horizontally then go up. Some claimed to be intimidated by the FBI. "you saw nothing." immediately after the event. Others stories were misrepresented in the press and in official reports and explanations. None were allowed to testify at public hearings. Eye witness accounts are notoriously inaccurate, as has been pointed out previously.

4. the center fuel tank spark has never been explained for sure. it's still Unknown. what could have caused it to exploded? the gas would not exploded without a spark. the official report calls it a unexplained. No, the official report says 'probable cause' was a static spark that ignited the overheated fuel vapors.

5. the official report tries to explain away some of the explosive material found as the result of a bomb sniffing training exercise preformed before the flight took off. However FOI docs show that the explanation is unlikely because the dog trainers say they were on an empty plane shortly before the same plane was known to be full of passengers ready to take off to Paris and it was standard for the pilots to be on long before the passengers. refuted in point 1 above.

6. 1 NTSB investigator in the film says he was told to only write a factual report not an analytical one. in every other cased he'd worked for years he did both. he says if he'd been allowed to write one he would have concluded that there was an externally explosion the caused the disaster. Based on the evidence he'd seen, not a center fuel tank explosion. So,the guy admits that he wrote a factual report, which did not conclude an external explosion.

there's more in the film .. if you want to take time to try to debunk it you should probably watch it.
don't ask me a bunch of questions, why this and why that. and what about aliens blah blah . Again, you're making ASSumptions, as always.

make up you own mind. to me what they said is compelling. That fact that water hardens into ice when brought to 32 degrees is compelling for you.
the Witnesses say a missile . if it were 5 or 6 i might blow it off. but 200+.
for me that right there is enough. eyewitness testimony is unreliable, as previously shown.

who did it, i can't say. accident or on purpose i don't know.
But it seems to me at the very least it's a military accident and a gov't cover up. you can't say who did it, but in the same breath you claim military coverup. You should be a politician. They say two different things at the same time as often as you do, and strongly believe both things.

You can stick to your fuel tank story, fine, I'm not going to try to convince you. you know better. yes... I do.

Everyone else is crazy. and it was a big mass-delusion about the missiles. Mass delusions like that happen all the time right.yup. Look at all the UFO sightings.

my comments in RED above.

I'm sorry... was I being a dick? :rolleyes:

revelarts

07-25-2013, 10:14 AM

Marcus I'm not gonna debate on this we disagree, but this part

ME: who did it, i can't say. accident or on purpose i don't know.
But it seems to me at the very least it's a military accident and a gov't cover up.

Macus: you can't say who did it, but in the same breath you claim military coverup. You should be a politician. They say two different things at the same time as often as you do, and strongly believe both things.

"who did it, i can't say. accident or on purpose i don't know.
But it seems to me at the very least it's a military accident and a gov't cover up."

See the distinction there Marcus. knowledge and opinion, appearance vs clear facts.
conclusions drawn vs facts at hand.
I don't KNOW it but i do think it's a very likely possibility of who did it.
IMO the facts are clear that the deed and cover up was done. who did it is not as clear. but the likely suspects are few.

Voted4Reagan

07-25-2013, 12:25 PM

Wtf???

Wonder why the conspiracy theorists in this never investigated that one? Too wild even for them I guess.

Easy... there were no 55 gallon drums on board

Voted4Reagan

07-25-2013, 12:29 PM

"who did it, i can't say. accident or on purpose i don't know.
But it seems to me at the very least it's a military accident and a gov't cover up."

What Military assets are you ascribing to this... ?

List the possibilities. or answer the ones I provided a few pages back...

You totally blew them off...

I know Military weapons systems and I know the Commander of the Destroyer Squadron closest to where this Happened.. He actually lives not far from Abouttime! he may actually know him!

List your military assets...

Marcus Aurelius

07-25-2013, 01:15 PM

Easy... there were no 55 gallon drums on board

but...but...but... there was an eye witness!. Rev says eyewitnesses are accurate!:poke:

Kathianne

07-25-2013, 01:19 PM

but...but...but... there was an eye witness!. Rev says eyewitnesses are accurate!:poke:

I wasn't comfortable at the time with the explanations or 'facts' given via the press. Still wonder, not that it would keep me up at night though, since there haven't been repeats.

I doubt our military did such a thing. However, I do wonder about terrorist and hand held launchers. "The FBI says they've ruled out terrorism..."

aboutime

07-25-2013, 01:20 PM

What Military assets are you ascribing to this... ?

List the possibilities. or answer the ones I provided a few pages back...

You totally blew them off...

I know Military weapons systems and I know the Commander of the Destroyer Squadron closest to where this Happened.. He actually lives not far from Abouttime! he may actually know him!

List your military assets...

V4R. Just more continuation of the needed conspiracy theory crap, is all this is.
As for knowing people. Exactly. In fact. My oldest son's Father-in-Law. A retired Marine Major. Works with Ratheon. A military
weapons system corporation that deals with all sorts of Sea, and Air launched weapons.
What the people who insist the MILITARY had a part in bringing down TWA 800 always fail to mention is.
After all these years. With so many Military people...supposedly involved, from aircraft, ships, or shore stations that
coordinate the launch of weapons like the MYSTERY MISSILE.
Wouldn't at least ONE PERSON have stepped forward, intentionally, or accidentally to SPILL THE BEANS?

And, as for me, and where I live. Near a large number of Navy Seal's, and their families from all across the country.
Most, if not all of them just LAUGH at the conspiracy theory junkies.
They enjoy listening to such people who KNOW NOTHING, but claim to know SO MUCH MORE than everyone else.

Voted4Reagan

07-25-2013, 01:37 PM

I wasn't comfortable at the time with the explanations or 'facts' given via the press. Still wonder, not that it would keep me up at night though, since there haven't been repeats.

I doubt our military did such a thing. However, I do wonder about terrorist and hand held launchers. "The FBI says they've ruled out terrorism..."

The plane was at 14000 feet.

No hand held launcher could have reached from the shore or from the surface to hit a Jet moving that fast at that altitude.

A surface launch would mean the vessel on the surface would have to be directly in the flight path and launched in a window of at most a few seconds.

14000 is the max when using most hand held launchers.

i posted the stats a few pages back but REV Disregarded and blew them off.

Marcus Aurelius

07-25-2013, 01:40 PM

I wasn't comfortable at the time with the explanations or 'facts' given via the press. Still wonder, not that it would keep me up at night though, since there haven't been repeats.

I doubt our military did such a thing. However, I do wonder about terrorist and hand held launchers. "The FBI says they've ruled out terrorism..."

I am unaware of any that have claimed responsibility, unless I missed it somehow. The vast majority of terrorist attacks of the magnitude of 9/11 or something like a jet going down, are claimed by multiple terrorist organizations.

Marcus Aurelius

07-25-2013, 01:41 PM

this thread really does belong in conspiracy theory section.

Kathianne

07-25-2013, 01:59 PM

I am unaware of any that have claimed responsibility, unless I missed it somehow. The vast majority of terrorist attacks of the magnitude of 9/11 or something like a jet going down, are claimed by multiple terrorist organizations.

As I said, it's the film that even brought this to mind. I found the explanation and reporting suspect during the time it happened, so not so quick to say, "Nothing to see here, move along.'

You only know what you're told by the government. Anyone not suspicious of what the government releases would be in denial. Too often the people are just being told 'nothing here to see...' Only an idiot would believe they could 'analyze' whatever has happened within minutes, even hours.

Marcus Aurelius

07-25-2013, 02:01 PM

aboutime

07-25-2013, 02:05 PM

And....STILL. "The Beat Goes On!"

Kathianne

07-25-2013, 02:12 PM

Well, none of that really addresses why no terrorist group ever claimed responsibility. The only logical inference from that, is that there were no terrorists involved.

Yeah, like the NSA couldn't stop that, right. Really, you think the newsies just sit around waiting for those self-reports? How many incidents had been in the US by that time?

As I've repeatedly said, I don't know what happened. From the time it happened, I just don't believe the full truth has ever come out. I've no clue to why it happened or what caused it. Just that the reports that the debris field, even over water was not to be expected with the explanation given. Reporting of cause was short lived and pretty much closed immediately.

Marcus Aurelius

07-25-2013, 02:41 PM

Kathianne

07-25-2013, 02:46 PM

You're saying the NSA can stop all mention of terrorist announcements, in this country, in any media form, as well as in any other country, in any media form?

I'm not getting dragged into 'conspiracies.' You were the one who tried to shut down by saying 'no one' was interested. I am. I've as much right as you to express myself.

There have been plenty of Rev's posts I've disagreed with, even added a :rolleyes: to, but don't try to act all liberal and shut him up.

Rev is nearly always respectful and just argues for his beliefs and sometimes just posts something he finds interesting. This topic seems to be in the later category. You should be free and are, to ignore.

Marcus Aurelius

07-25-2013, 02:54 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=653924#post653924)
You're saying the NSA can stop all mention of terrorist announcements, in this country, in any media form, as well as in any other country, in any media form?

I'm not getting dragged into 'conspiracies.' You were the one who tried to shut down by saying 'no one' was interested. I am. I've as much right as you to express myself.

There have been plenty of Rev's posts I've disagreed with, even added a :rolleyes: to, but don't try to act all liberal and shut him up.

Rev is nearly always respectful and just argues for his beliefs and sometimes just posts something he finds interesting. This topic seems to be in the later category. You should be free and are, to ignore.

Kathianne... you're the one who implied heavily that the NSA would could stop any mention of terrorists claiming responsibility. All I really did was ask for clarification of your comment. If you think the NSA can stop all mention of a terrorist group claiming responsibility for an act, in any media outlet in any country, then you have a lot more faith in their abilities than I do. Could they get US media, in some cases, not to mention it? Sure. All media, everywhere? I highly doubt it.

I have never said you have no right to express yourself.

I have never tried to shut Rev up. I said no one was interested in his conspiracy theory. I was apparently mistaken. My interest lies in disproving his conspiracy theory with evidence and facts... many of which have been presented to him, and promptly ignored.

It would appear I have offended you personally. If that is the case, it was certainly not my intent.