TWA Flt 800

[JimNtexas]

I thought everyone DOES know it was shot down. The govt is just sticking to its story

I tried to google

Does anyone in the govt have a response to the documentary

Yes.

Now a petition to re-open the NTSB investigation has been filed and a new documentary is scheduled for release which raises those conspiracy theories once again. How do these ?new? theories stack up against the NTSB investigation?

I was one of five NTSB Board members that approved the TWA 800 accident report that determined that the probable cause of the accident was an explosion in the Boeing BA +0.84% 747?s center fuel tank. I have read the petition filed by a former NTSB accident investigator and have watched the documentary (made available to the media) that was recently produced to refute the NTSB?s probable cause determination.

The petition and film rely on four main points: 1) radar data that allegedly shows an explosion next to the aircraft 2) eyewitness accounts of flashes of light traveling from the ground up that were allegedly discounted; 3) trace amounts of chemical residue that were found; and 4) aircraft wreckage that was inconsistent with a center fuel tank explosion. In addition, they allege a conspiracy by the NTSB and FBI to destroy and cover-up evidence.

No Evidence in Aircraft Fuselage Wreckage of Explosion Next to Aircraft

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.

I added the emphasis because it exactly confirms my direct personal experience with 18 years of professional study of and experience with surface-to-air and air-to-air weapons

 

[shroomwell]

A probable explanation could be that it was a missile fired by a terrorist, not by our Navy. Perhaps the evidence of it being a missile was covered up.

The president at the time decided that he didn't know who it was and could not declare war. So he decided it was best to cover it up. Can you imagine the panic in the public if they knew a 747 was shot down in our country by terrorists. Air travel would have gone to zero and the economy would have imploded.

Instead a covert operation would have been undertaken to find who did it and get these weapons out of terrorist hands.

The only problem with this theory is, why haven't any terror groups taken credit for it.

 

[JimNtexas]

Perhaps the evidence of it being a missile was covered up.

Highly unlikely. Enough of the airframe was exhibited to the public to preclude 'covering up' the extensive damage a missile would have caused.

Also, it would have to be a radar guided large missile. A manpad would have hit an engine, and in any case would not have the energy to break a 747in half.

I really wish that our government was a tenth as effective as the conspiracy theorists think it is.

 

[scoreboardII]

we've got blond-headed NSA beach geeks selling out our secrets, Seals selling their Osama story even though they know the mission was classified, so no, I don't think a 747 conspiracy would remain under wraps very long. I'm with Jmntxas, I wish our government was as good as to hide this type of conspiracy.

 

[glasspilot1]

The president at the time decided that he didn't know who it was and could not declare war. So he decided it was best to cover it up. Can you imagine the panic in the public if they knew a 747 was shot down in our country by terrorists. Air travel would have gone to zero and the economy would have imploded.

Clinton was just a few months from his re-election. And the Atlanta Olympics were about to start. Cover up, Cover up, Cover up.

The only problem with this theory is, why haven't any terror groups taken credit for it.

One theory for no claims is that terrorists hit the wrong plane. An El-Al 747 was supposed to be in front of TWA 800 but had a ground delay. Would a terrorist organization admit to shooting down the wrong airplane?

 

[SWA Bubba]

One theory for no claims is that terrorists hit the wrong plane. An El-Al 747 was supposed to be in front of TWA 800 but had a ground delay. Would a terrorist organization admit to shooting down the wrong airplane?

Of course they'd take credit. However, in that case, they'd just claim that they were intending to target the American plane all along. Back then, shooting down an American 747 would have been just as good as shooting down an Israeli 747, for pushing a terrorist ideology. Today, of course, it would be even better.

No self-respecting terror organization would go to all that effort, technical and otherwise, and then allow the Americans to explain it away and pretend it didn't happen. What's the point of a terrorist act, if nobody knows about it? Hell, they even claim stuff they didn't do.

Not saying that the NTSB got it right, but that's the problem with conspiracy theories--you start with your conclusion, and then bend every fact to try to make it fit. (Of course, that problem exists with all flawed investigations or flawed scientific theory.)

Bubba

 

[JimNtexas]

If the terrorists had this magic invisible missile they'd have already won.

 

[Crucianpilot]

So it wasn't a missile, and it sure wasn't a fuel tank explosion. What was it then? Just watched the documentary and it seems like very compelling evidence.

 

[THEPRFCT10]

I can't recall any other time a 747 exploded in midair like this one... and how long has the 74 been around when TWA 800 went down? Yeah, fuel / electrical lines my a$$

 

[JimNtexas]

It was a fuel tank explosion, as has happened a number of times on various Boeings.

 

[THEPRFCT10]

It was a fuel tank explosion, as has happened a number of times on various Boeings.

Really? When on a 747? Highly doubtful it was a fuel tank explosion. The government still won't give explanations to the dozens of photos taken by those on the south shore of Long Island.

 

[slaquer5]

It was a fuel tank explosion, as has happened a number of times on various Boeings.

Could you name a couple ?

 

[PCL_128]

It scares me how many conspiracy theorist wackjobs are apparently at the controls of airliners.

 

[Crucianpilot]

How about just trying to get an honest answer to the question. Not a fuel tank explosion, not a missile so what was it then?

 

[PCL_128]

It was a fuel tank explosion. Period.