Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

TWA 800: Conspiracy? on History Channel at 10pm EST

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
Thanks.

I will go see what they have to say.

Since some think the Navy fires Missiles less than 12 NM off the coast of NYC:)
 
qmaster3 said:
Since some think the Navy fires Missiles less than 12 NM off the coast of NYC:)
Click to expand...

I've read the book First Strike, that is mentioned in the show. It has a lot of good information about the evidence supporting a missile attack, but it supports the theory about a terrorist-flown small plane that the Navy shot down, bringing TWA 800 down too. There are several glaring holes in that theory:

-The TRACON radar would have had no problem getting a primary target on any small plane. It recorded mysterious Mach 2 primaries, as well as debris being ejected from the aircraft, but no small plane.

-Even if the terrorists had a fast plane (Cherokee Six! LOL!!!) like a Lear 24, chasing down a 747 while remaining undetected would be very difficult.

-Navy surface to air missiles like the Standard are very large, with large warheads that would leave unmistakable evidence. And good luck getting the whole crew of a cruiser to keep that kind of secret!

-If there was a threat of a terrorist aircraft in the skies that night, why not have the Air Force patrolling, not the Navy?
 
i was brainwashed after the first 20 min.... then the third 'option' was shown and i'm back at square one ;)
 
That Loeb guy sure was ornery and defensive about his NTSB investigation. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

I lean towards the shoulder-fired missile theory. Even the government acknowledges the disappearing boat, and 200+ witnesses to ascending, phosphorescent lights??? C'mon! I know that people's memories sometimes distort what they saw, but 200 people stating the same thing, some of them military aviators? For all of them to have this "illusion" that Loeb supports is preposterous.

The Olympics were about to crank up. Yousef was on trial. Warnings had been faxed to agencies in the Middle East the day before.

Loeb had 3rd grade responses to all the evidence, such as discounting flammable residue on a single cross section of seatbacks as "glue that holds the seats together."

Also, the CIA's "quick climb" presentation was just silly. They want us to believe that the center tank exploded and all that severed was the front section, and cleanly enough, no less, for the rest of the craft to climb 2,000-3,000 feet; or that the witnesses saw ignited fuel coming down, when all of them stated that they clearly saw lights going up towards the plane.

I'll never be on board the government's conclusion on this one. However, I don't have a definitive opinion on which terrorist scenario took place. The Cherokee dive bomber is kind of ridiculous. Even when those things can make it to 14,000, they aren't very nimble.

My favorite part was the recreation of the agent's demonstration where he poked a bunch of holes in a paper napkin, shredded it, dropped the pieces and asked the others to show him where his pen had penetrated.
 
Just watched it, it definately convinced my dad... I am not so sure. I dont trust the government all that much especially with the CIA being involved in the "explanation", but it is sad to wonder what those pilots were thinking as they fell to the sea.
 
This gets debated over and over...

...and everyone knows where I stand on the issue.

All I can say is this: My 747 systems instructor was a former FE on Air Force One (I'm crappin' you negative) and he thinks it was shot down.

This incident doesn't fall under the Wacky Paranoid Tin Foil Hat category.

There are some very sober and professional people who consider it a shoot down.

As always I won't venture a guess as to who or why (military vs. terrorist) but I'm convinced it was covered up.

After all, besides the events of 9/11, when has the FBI ever been *immediately* dispatched to the accident scene and *then* released the investigation to the NTSB???

It's crazy.

BTW I didn't see the TV program.

Best.
 
After watching it....Well I still don't know...


It's been mentioned before. If the government can't keep Clintons BJ a secret, they are not going to keep something like this hush. The Clowns In Action made me laugh though. Wouldn't something like the nose being off, Create one hell of an aerodynamic mess? When they first showed the nose coming off. I thought the pax were going to climb to altitude and make it off Autopilot. I've heard of Cessna’s losing just one windshield and not being able to hold altitude. I know it's a smaller vacuum, but similar theory???


EagleRJ,

Man you are right. Some sailor would have gotten drunk and talked. Better yet gotten out of the Navy and sold the story.
 
There was a Polar 747 in trail of 800.
The captains version of what he saw differs from the Gov explaination.
 
Indapool said:
There was a Polar 747 in trail of 800.
The captains version of what he saw differs from the Gov explaination.
Click to expand...

While looking for a text on google collaborating your story, i found this conspiracy theory :)

http://www.fosar-bludorf.com/archiv/tlr_eng.htm


Code: 
 Were the passengers on board of TWA 800 less lucky, 
and their aircraft was rammed by a similar thing, giving rise to 
the the burning of the fuel tank? So what is it that flies around
there near the coast of Long Island that met twice with an 
airplane in the interval of only few more than one year?


I guess you can come up with dozens of theories - just use the data that best fits yours ;)



Personally, i'm inclined to believe Option#1 from the show on THC - the one where terrorists fired from fast boats.
 
Again I point out that the F-117A was in sqadron service in the airforce for over 10 years before ANYONE in the public knew knew aobut it. That's designers, contractors, pilots, grounds crews, tower operators, and everyone else involved keeping a secret for a LONG time. And as far as the Air Force personnel goes, we're not talking about 1 group of people here, we're talking about a decade of crews...The government CAN keep a secret if they want to.

And most of the "credible" witnesses stated plainly when they were shown the "CIA animation" that "that's not what I saw". The CIA explination was based on the assumption that no one saw anything until they heard the emplosion, then they looked and saw the fuel burning. Most of the credible witnesses stated that they saw the acending object, saw it merge with the aircraft, and saw the explosion occur. All this BEFORE hearing the boom. And again, WHY was it the CIA who came up with this video? Tell me the the NTSB wasn't capable of the same thing.
 
It Was A Meteor....one In A Billion But Explains The Light Trace At The Plane And Explains The Reason A Piece Of The Aircraft Was Disinigrated.
 
atrdriver said:
Again I point out that the F-117A was in sqadron service in the airforce for over 10 years before ANYONE in the public knew knew aobut it.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out before, there is a HUGE difference between keeping a secret about military technology and keeping quiet the murder of over a hundred people. Somebody will talk about the latter.

Peace!

Skeezer
 
atrdriver said:
Again I point out that the F-117A was in sqadron service in the airforce for over 10 years before ANYONE in the public knew knew aobut it. That's designers, contractors, pilots, grounds crews, tower operators, and everyone else involved keeping a secret for a LONG time. And as far as the Air Force personnel goes, we're not talking about 1 group of people here, we're talking about a decade of crews...The government CAN keep a secret if they want to.
Click to expand...

True, but that was a good secret. An accidental shootdown by the Navy would have been a bad secret, and those you can't keep.
Did the Navy try to keep it covered up when the USS Vincennes shot down the Iranian A-310? They didn't because they couldn't.

Mattpilot-

There was a time-specific threat received from an Islamic terrorist group nine hours before the attack, and there was a claim of responsibility the day after. A London paper reported a claim of responsibility from an Iranian-backed group tied to the "blind sheik", who was being sentanced for the World Trade Center bombing at the time of the crash.
 
Remember the Anti-terrorism Act Clinton wanted in the middle 90's? Act 1, Ok city. No go. Act II, Atlanta Olympics. No go, but closer. Act III, TWA 800. Partial passage. Talk about conspiracies.
 
It was shot down. Period. I have a source in the CIA. It was shot down........Now assume that my souce is full of crap. Go find a mathematian and ask him what the probability is if 200,300, or 700 people,as the case may be, see something rise into the air and shortly afterwards hear an explosion. It's **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** near 100 percent.................THIS is a pilot forum. YOU are driving an aircraft and almost instantly you lose almost forty (40) tons of your nose. Is this airplane going to climb, or try to swap ends with your tail?...............Put it this way. You are in a 172 and the prop flips an end and the engine removes itself from the firewall. What is the aircraft going to do?
 
BD King said:
You are in a 172 and the prop flips an end and the engine removes itself from the firewall. What is the aircraft going to do?
Click to expand...

Probably pitch up and climb for a bit until the weathervane effect wears off and the palne flips backwards over and eventually breaks apart.

If it still has two wings and an intact tail it will be an airplane, just with a royally f'd up C.G. and one helluva lot of drag. It won't last long, but anything will fly until the engery bleeds off.

Skeezer
 
Ladies and Gentlemen I encourage all of you to check out a recently published book "Cover Up" by Peter Lance, an award winning journalist.

Peter forwards the theory that flight 800 was brought down by a device that is little more than a blasting cap. When properly placed (in the correct seat row), the resulting blast is enough to ignite a center fuel tank.

He revisits the St. Louis bomb dog training theory, provides photocopies of key documentation (1st source material), making the most conclusive argument I have seen to date!
 
snpower said:
He revisits the St. Louis bomb dog training theory, provides photocopies of key documentation (1st source material), making the most conclusive argument I have seen to date!
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the time table for these events did not match up? The impression I got was that according to the police officers own statements, he would have been conducting the dog training only 30-40 minutes prior to the scheduled departure of the aircraft - essentially about the same time as passenger pre-board/boarding began according to gate/dispatch records.
 
This is true. His own statements were supposedly 'modified' by the government. I did not mean for my post to read as if that theory was correct, only that part of his investigation required that he take another look at it.

Most of the intel for the bomb-trigger theory the book supports comes from a mafia connected FBI informant, who, gained the trust of jailed terrorist Ramsey Yousef (1993 WTC). Yousef wanted to down an airliner to effect a mistrial in his own upcoming trial. Read the book! The dots are seemingly well connected.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom