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 Opinion

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

SlapShot

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2005
Posts
326
I just watched the TWA 800 episode of Seconds From Disaster on The National Geographic Channel. I of course have my own opinion of what happened to that airplane. I was just wondering what others thought. It has been 10 years since the accident happened and A LOT of books have been written about it. So what do you people think happened to that airplane on that July night back in 1996?
 
Exactly what the NTSB said happened.

A better question is: If so many people have claimed to have seen Bigfoot, why hasn't anyone hit one with his/her car?
 
Malter1 said:
Exactly what the NTSB said happened.

Yep. Clinton couldn't keep a hummer under his desk a secret... I don't know how he could keep this a secret. And if it was an accidental shootdown by the Navy, somebody wouldv'e blabbed already: a self-important junior officer, a disgruntled seaman, an NCO with a guilty conscience... unless you can have 300 sailors all part of a vast cover-up.

Two immutable truths: the more people know about something, the less likely it is to be kept secret, and the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
 
Cheesus Crust, I'm going to go out in the garage and poke my eyes out with a marlinespike, so I don't have to read another TWA 800 conspiracy thread again.

I've told you guys for the last time, Iraq flew a bunch of stealth fighters up to the air lock on the bottom of the plane and took all the people hostage, replacing them with gassed Kurds for the explosion. He's going to demand a ransom as soon as he finds out what his sentence is going to be.
 
I don't claim to know what happened, but every FE I know says that the story they are giving out is not possible. And one of those FEs wrote the aging aircraft manual. If any one knows the aircraft systems and whats possible, he does.
 
K-Mart said:
JetBlue and Needleman are responsible.

Martha Stewart and K-Mart are responsible.
 
Just to follow up on ATRedneck's post, how many NTSB, FAA, and FBI agents would have been in on the cover up. And why would we cover it up? No one ever answers that question. Do you really think people would just stop flying because of this incident. They had no problem stating that Pan Am 103 was a bomb. People continued to fly after that.
 
Just to follow up on ATRedneck's post, how many NTSB, FAA, and FBI agents would have been in on the cover up

Also one of the FAs was married to an FBI agent in the New York office, and was a close personal friend of the lead FBI investigator (James Kallstrom). So it would probably be pretty difficult to get somebody to cover up the murder of a wife or a close friend.


Personally, I think it was Bush practicing for the day they would intentionally bring down the World Trade Center on 9/11.........after all, everything that has gone wrong for the last 16 years is Bush's fault, one way or another.....
 
doh said:
I don't claim to know what happened, but every FE I know says that the story they are giving out is not possible. And one of those FEs wrote the aging aircraft manual. If any one knows the aircraft systems and whats possible, he does.

Talk to the engineers at Boeing who were given the task of reproducing the fuel tank explosion under controlled circumstances.

They could never reproduce the explosive combustion in the fuel tank.
 
[QUOTETalk to the engineers at Boeing who were given the task of reproducing the fuel tank explosion under controlled circumstances.

They could never reproduce the explosive combustion in the fuel tank.][/QUOTE]

I would like to see their report on that: Got a link?
 
Bigfoot threw Elvis into space which hit a metior that hit the airplane. It make perfect sense.
 
Bs

rjcap said:
Talk to the engineers at Boeing who were given the task of reproducing the fuel tank explosion under controlled circumstances.

They could never reproduce the explosive combustion in the fuel tank.


I've personally seen an FA-18 with the back end opened up like a sardine can from the exact same type of explosion in tank 4. Happened during a survivability test.

Do a google search on "ullage explosion" and educate yourself.
 
SkiFishFly said:
I've personally seen an FA-18 with the back end opened up like a sardine can from the exact same type of explosion in tank 4. Happened during a survivability test.

Do a google search on "ullage explosion" and educate yourself.

Interesting information from that search.

Now that I educated myself could you tell me what type of ignition source was used on the F18 you mentioned.
 
Cheesus Crust, I'm going to go out in the garage and poke my eyes out with a marlinespike, so I don't have to read another TWA 800 conspiracy thread again.

Thanks man.... I needed that laugh.

By the way - as far as conspiracies, don't forget the ~5 TWA ALPA volunteers who went on paid leave (paid for by the insurance carrier) for a year to work the investigation. One of them taught my ALPA AI class. He said there was absolutely no way a missile could have hit that airframe, given the metal fragments he looked at. And he lost friends in it - yeah, he could be kept quiet.
 
There's a sale on tinfoil hats over Amazon.com. They cut the price because they have the "Y2K" logo on them.
 
Does anyone remember the Alitalia Crew reporting what appeared to be a missle streak by the airplane one day prior to this event. I do. It was in the news.
 
LIGHTDRIVER said:
Does anyone remember the Alitalia Crew reporting what appeared to be a missle streak by the airplane one day prior to this event. I do. It was in the news.

In that case, it MUST be true!
 
Why doesn't everyone come over to my place ~ we can chow down on the extra Spam and hard tack I've had stored in the lockdown shelter I built for Y2K and we'll discuss it further. I think I have another bottle or two of Stoli left down here as well.

And hey, there's that Brittany Spears CD I've been looking for!
 
How many Boeing 747's have had exploding center tanks before or since? The numbers are staggering.....I guess.:rolleyes:
 
From a person related to one of the TWAers on that flight. Raytheon was testing a prototype surface to air interceptor missile. The Navy had Scud from the first Iraq War that they used as a target drone. The new missile's primary tracking system failed and it reverted to heat seeking. The closest heat source: 800.
It's funny that every time you see an image of the reconstructed aircraft in that NTSB hangar you only see essentially the fuselage. No nose or empennage and more importantly no wings or engines. They claim to have recovered over 90 percent of the aircraft. If the NTSB is using this as an effective learning tool for future accident investigators, then why don't they include everything that they've recovered. You need to study every minute piece of wreckage, right?
As far as the Navy cover up, there aren't too many windows on a missile frigate. Out of a crew of maybe 350, there were maybe a handful of eyes outside, i.e. the bridge? Everybody else is deep below deck in the CIC,powerplant etc. Just possibly, not too many people to keep quiet.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom