TWA Flt 800

[Mamma]

A SAM kills with a huge shotgun blast of shrapnel, what's left of the target looks like swiss cheese.

No shrapnel holes in TWA 800.

That's not the case with a man pad.

 

[Jim]

That's not the case with a man pad.

It was outside the envelope for a manpad and manpads go for heat (engines).

 

[trip]

The one that DHL was "outside the envelope" also.

 

[gutshotdraw]

The question really is how do you best hide something this public?

Right out in the open has always been the most effective. Every theory brought forward will be immediately ridiculed or squashed publicly except the dubious cover story about a supposed self-ignition of vapors in a center fuel tank. It starts sounding plausible enough upon spurious examination and soon enough, after a coordinated media circus, most folks will go along with it and dutifully begin to ape all on their own the same discrediting tactics as they have heard repeated over and over again in the media.

Putting all that aside, the official NTSB explanation does not stand up well when examined more closely, so it is a good thing that someone has enough spine to reopen this thing and see where the clues lead this time.

I don't need tin foil or spam to realize that things in this instance may not be as they were made to appear, no matter how many may be emotionally invested in the prevailing spin.

The technique you reference is known as "gaslighting" and is deployed more often than most people realize. Get people to start questioning their own recollection of events or their own judgement and they are far easier to manipulate.

 

[glasspilot1]

It was outside the envelope for a manpad and manpads go for heat (engines).

Reaching way back in my memory I thought there were some manpads that could make it to 13,000+ feet. And the center of 4 JT9's is about where the center fuel tank is.

 

[NEDude]

The history of the United States government is typically exaggerating events or falsifying evidence as a case for war. Several examples come to mind, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, WMDs in Iraq are few of the more note able ones. The conspiracy theories involving Sept. 11 all involve the government playing a role in order to justify war. This conspiracy theory goes just the opposite of all of the known and fictional conspiracy theories out there - that the government covered up an attack in order to prevent a war. That alone makes me very skeptical.

 

[OHGOON]

The history of the United States government is typically exaggerating events or falsifying evidence as a case for war. Several examples come to mind, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, WMDs in Iraq are few of the more note able ones. The conspiracy theories involving Sept. 11 all involve the government playing a role in order to justify war. This conspiracy theory goes just the opposite of all of the known and fictional conspiracy theories out there - that the government covered up an attack in order to prevent a war. That alone makes me very skeptical.

Unless this one has all to do with "friendly" fire.

 

[atpcliff]

There have been four KC-135s that blew up, including the last one out of Bishkek, I believe. The AF did not know what happened in the 1st 3. They thought it was the center fuel tank explosion, but they did not have definitive evidence.

cliff
GRB

 

[Jim]

Reaching way back in my memory I thought there were some manpads that could make it to 13,000+ feet. And the center of 4 JT9's is about where the center fuel tank is.

Nope, at least not in 1996. I don't know about now. It would have gone for the hottest spot/hottest engine, not the center of a heat mass.

 

[JCJ]

There is absolutely no way our government pulled this off and kept it quiet either then or now. No way. My favorite theory is that a missile from a US Navy destroyer shot it down. Really? A boat filled with 300 kids shot that thing down and not one... not one of those 17-25 year old sailors said a word about it. Give me a break. That news would have hit the pier before the first line was cast ashore.

No way any patriot working for the CIA, FBI, NSA, or other spy agency would pull the trigger on that mission. A mission such as this would need several people "in the know" and I don't believe for a second that there are half a dozen sworn agents that would do such a thing against their country and innocent citizens. No way they were tricked into doing it by some political appointee either cause if that were to happen to me try stopping me from speaking to every news outlet in the country to tell the real story.

No way the government paid some 3rd world operative to do it either cause: 1) Employees in one of the above agencies would have had to work that deal and; 2) that 3rd world dirtbag would have gone public with it in order to get his martyr lifetime membership card.

Crap happens. May they all rest in peace.

^this

 

[JCJ]

We're talking about killing hundreds of American civilians here- not designing the SR-71 or F-117. No American serviceman would knowingly (or not) take part in this and not go public with it. Perhaps I am naive in thinking that.

Agree. Especially in the era of Manning and Snowden who see it as their duty to go public with government secrets. No way something like this could have been kept under wraps for so long.

Although I think there is lots of room for doubt in the NTSB findings, I just don't buy an intentional shoot-down.

 

[JimNtexas]

That's not the case with a man pad.

1) You're mistaken. Most manpads need to hit or at least come very close to their target, but they do use fragmentation as a kill mechanism. And of course they leave big parts of themselves in the wreckage.

2) TWA 800 was too high for a manpad.

3) No missile components were found in the wreckage.

No missile can kill an airplane and leave no trace.

There have been a few instances of civil airplanes being hit by inadvertent missile fire. The best example was Siberia Airlines Flight 1812, which was accidently shot down by an Ukrainian SA-5 (aka S-200) missile.

In that case the aircraft skin was peppered with holes and missile components were found embedded in the wreckage.

And of course the whole notion that an inadvertent missile firing could be kept a secret by the thousands of people who would know about it beyond ridiculous. Not only would an entire ship's crew, from the captain to the laundry tech would have to stay silent for decades, the FBI (who inventoried all the missiles in the darn Navy), the Navy supply system, and the entire NTSB would be in on the conspiracy. Only an idiot, or Alex Jones would believe that.

 

[waveflyer]

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

 

[Jim]

Does anyone in the govt have a response to the documentary

Why should the government respond? A response just adds more fuel to the fire.

 

[waveflyer]

Yeah, well... Your argument against it being shot down gets weaker by the post

Let me explain- the argument you use works against itself

You're basically saying its too big a secret, it couldn't be kept, right?

Yet here we are. Most of us about as far away from this 'op gone bad' or whatever it was- as could be- and yet we at least doubt this investigation-

And a lot of us think it could be possible that it was accidentally shot down-

So...you can't say it couldn't be true bc the govt couldn't keep the secret, if pretty much nobody believes the spontaneous fuel tank conclusion, and a good % of rational people believe what is supposed to be kept secret, might've happened.

Iow: the secret HASN'T been kept(!)

So you just have to come up with another argument.

I would think that since investigators involved are saying their conclusions were manipulated-

Good lord yes- the govt has every responsibility to respond(!)

Who are you that you'd think they wouldn't? If their findings aren't transparent and aren't conclusive and open for everyone independent who has a mind to, to come to the same conclusion- it doesn't need to have been shot down in order for the people to demand a better result out of our investigation.

That's a very rational thing to expect.

One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to demand satisfactory conclusions that can be duplicated by any scientist

And most of us believe that this accident investigation smells-

 

[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.