PDA

View Full Version : Was TWA Flight 800 Shot Down?



Waddie
06-19-2013, 12:51 AM
Apparently, several of the crash investigators are coming forward in a new documentary saying a fuel tank explosion was NOT responsible for the flight 800 crash. “They also provide radar and forensic evidence proving that one or more ordinance explosions outside the aircraft caused the crash.”

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

This link is Fox News, which I know many of you dislike, but when I Googled it the story is all over the 'Net.

regards,
Waddie

Phillip Allen
06-19-2013, 12:59 AM
Hmmm...

Glen Longino
06-19-2013, 01:01 AM
Genglandoh? Is that you Gengster?

Breakaway
06-19-2013, 01:05 AM
At the time of the crash the US Navy was conducting "maneuvers" further offshore. This fact is notable for its lack of mention.

Kevin

The Bigfella
06-19-2013, 01:19 AM
At the time of the crash the US Navy was conducting "maneuvers" further offshore. This fact is notable for its lack of mention.

Kevin

They do have experience with airliners, don't they?

Tom Wilkinson
06-19-2013, 10:25 AM
At least we are spending millions modifying aircraft to install nitrogen systems to prevent this from happening again.......

Not a lot of faith in that theory in the industry.

Tom Wilkinson
06-19-2013, 10:31 AM
Chicken....

Really I'd be curious about whatever opinions are out there. I have serious doubts about the official story based on my work in and around aircraft fuel tanks over the last 25 years.

Static or electrical spark igniting that tank just doesn't seem likely.

Reynard38
06-19-2013, 10:59 AM
I remember there were a lot of witnesses along the beach that saw something that night. They wee all "unavailable for comment" afterwards.
Always thought the fuel tank explosion explanation was a bit thin.
Can you even imagine the ramifications if it was indeed shot down and was subsequently covered up by the govt?

Phillip Allen
06-19-2013, 11:02 AM
I remember there were a lot of witnesses along the beach that saw something that night. They wee all "unavailable for comment" afterwards.
Always thought the fuel tank explosion explanation was a bit thin.
Can you even imagine the ramifications if it was indeed shot down and was subsequently covered up by the govt?

I can just begin to imagine those ramifications... scary

Phillip Allen
06-19-2013, 11:05 AM
At the time of the crash the US Navy was conducting "maneuvers" further offshore. This fact is notable for its lack of mention.

Kevin

live firing?... how likely is that close to anyone's shores?

Tom Wilkinson
06-19-2013, 11:40 AM
I remember there were a lot of witnesses along the beach that saw something that night. They wee all "unavailable for comment" afterwards.
Always thought the fuel tank explosion explanation was a bit thin.
Can you even imagine the ramifications if it was indeed shot down and was subsequently covered up by the govt?

I spent a lot of time working in fuel tanks and quite frankly we weren't always exactly safe about. Just open the tank and climb in and get to work. Sure we could vent it a bit, but not always very well depending on what we were doing or how long/far we were going to be in there. Methods and procedures have changed a good bit over the years, but 25 years ago we weren't real careful.

I've seen lots and lots of non explosion proof lights used inside, all kinds of cutting, and grinding tools used.

I just don't see the likelihood of a tank exploding. Not just from vapor and a boost pump spark. Jet A just isn't that volatile.

Jim Bow
06-19-2013, 11:56 AM
At least we are spending millions modifying aircraft to install nitrogen systems to prevent this from happening again.......

Not a lot of faith in that theory in the industry.

I was going to say the same thing.
I recall Boeing and the airlines spending big money on the nitrogen systems and electrical and monitoring systems after the crash.
Seeing as Boeing and the airlines at the time were top heavy with senior ex military management, you'd think that maybe they would have had inside info on a supposed shoot down.
That, or else, Boeing and the airlines decided to spend the millions in order to maintain the coverup in order to protect the Clinton administration from embarrassment.

skipper68
06-19-2013, 10:25 PM
YES False Flag?
No.

skipper68
06-19-2013, 10:45 PM
I'm flying out of JFK next week, I guess I would rather not know." THEY" do know. No problem, they are busy watching honest peeps.
You will let a Dangerous person into our country, while they detain YOU, sad but true, :(
They are needle dick power hungry high-school drop outs.
Enjoy!

The Bigfella
06-19-2013, 11:22 PM
Dave - along the same lines, here's a Russian-made SAM in Laos. My guess, but I'd say it was brought down, at low altitude, by a proximity-fused missile exploding near it. Very little in the way of puncture damage... but enough.

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/Beer%20Lao/236.jpg (http://s240.photobucket.com/user/igatenby/media/Beer%20Lao/236.jpg.html)

The Bigfella
06-19-2013, 11:33 PM
Thinking about that just made me go back to my photo files. I've processed a few more of that SAM.

Here's the entry holes

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/Beer%20Lao/in_zps65f4a9a8.jpg (http://s240.photobucket.com/user/igatenby/media/Beer%20Lao/in_zps65f4a9a8.jpg.html)

Exit holes

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/Beer%20Lao/out_zps92cb0320.jpg (http://s240.photobucket.com/user/igatenby/media/Beer%20Lao/out_zps92cb0320.jpg.html)

and another overall shot of the missile... showing a bit more of the fin damage and crumple marks from where it has hit the ground.

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/Beer%20Lao/side_zps0250a06f.jpg (http://s240.photobucket.com/user/igatenby/media/Beer%20Lao/side_zps0250a06f.jpg.html)

That's not a lot of damage... but I imagine that if the belly tank of a 747 took a hit like that, it wouldn't be good. It wouldn't leave a lot of tell-tale pieces, either.

Breakaway
06-20-2013, 12:05 AM
live firing?... how likely is that close to anyone's shores?

No. I dont know enough about naval procedure or training to know what the "maneuvers" were actually called. Nor am I accusing US serviceman of intentionally doing this. But there were warships some 40 miles off the beach--the plane dropped about nine miles off the beach. With all the automation, I am only suggesting that an accident involving US Navy ship is possible. Also, if there was a missile or projectile, wouldn't a Navy ship in the relative vicinity have picked that up on its RADAR or other sensors?

This was a terrible tragedy. I was one of a number of private boaters who ran out to the crash site to try and help find survivors that night. Found none. Very sobering to be there idling through the debris field.

With such a personal connection, I would just like the truth. I did not see the alleged "missile." But I do have connections to several people who said they did see a "streak" before hearing the boom. I don't know these folks intimately, but by appearance, reputation and the opinion of friends in common, they are sane and sober people.

Kevin

Flying Orca
06-20-2013, 06:52 AM
According to the reports, the naval exercises were 160 miles away, IIRC. The front half of the fuselage appears to have separated first, after which the now-flaming remainder continued in undirected, crippled flight that took it on a rising trajectory before it exploded - presumably the trail and fireball people saw. There was reportedly no evidence whatsoever of an external explosion.

Keith Wilson
06-20-2013, 07:08 AM
I'm sorry, this is just another one of those tired conspiracy theories that blows the fuses on the improbability drive. Twenty years ago, God know how many people would have to be involved, and not a singe one of them decided to breathe a word of it the entire time, either from an attack of conscience or a desire for fame? And the supposed motive was merely to cover up a screwup, not even money or geopolitical advantage? Nah. Total BS; distractions for the lumpenproletariat, in the same class as the Kardashians.

The Bigfella
06-20-2013, 07:35 AM
shhh...

let it run for a bit longer, eh?

peterAustralia
06-20-2013, 08:34 AM
I am going to get pretty annoyed,, and here is why

The experts concluded it was a jet fuel explosion.

Now normally jet fuel is not volatile, however in this flight the center fuel tank had only a small amount of fuel in it. Then to add more hassle the airline was on the tarmac for quite some time whilst the air conditioners ran. This is significant because the air conditioners give off heat, and are located under the center fuel tank. Thus a combination of a very small amount of fuel in the center fuel tank, and running air conditioners for a couple of hours can result in a volatile fuel mix. This can be tested (that these conditions can lead to a volatile fuel vapour), through experiements and testing.

Nowadays airliners are instructed to have the center fuel tank either completely empty, or else start with quite a bit of fuel in them. This was a recommendation after the investigation.


Now, what you need next is a spark. There is wiring in the center fuel tank for the fuel level sensors. It is true that this wiring is low voltage and should not spark. However there are miles and miles of wiring in a plane, and over years the insulation in wiring breaks down (this is a huge problem in old planes). This can result in a damaged low voltage wire being in contact with a damaged high voltage wire, and resulting in a high voltage load going into the fuel tank sensors that are in the center fuel tank.

Please note that hte military has replaced all its wiring in its planes due to poor insulation issues (it was breaking up). This was not done with commercial airliners due to cost. Please note that military aircraft have nitrogen above their fuel, thus there is no oxygen for the fuel to burn with. Commercial airliners do not use this nitrogren vapour system due to the extra cost.

Next, witnesses seeing the 'missile'
The experts said that after the central fuel tank blew up, the plane continued flying for awhile, still climbing slowly whilst huge flames consumed the airplane. No the people inside did not have quick painless deaths. Thus the experts say that what looked like a missile, was in fact the burning plane continueing to fly for awhile.

The experts examined every peice of wreckage, They could not find any piece of metal consistent with an outside object impacting the airplane.

The experts could not find one peice of missile wreckage, despite spending millions and millions of dollars, and scanning countless square miles of sea bed, collecting every single tiny bit of wreckage they could.

Next the plane was flying too high to be hit by a small MANPAD missile. As to a large Navy missile hitting the airplane, every single surface to air missile in the Navy was looked for and accounted for. There were no missing missiles. There was no damage to the metal of the plane consistent with it being hit via a missile.

To sum up. The experts went through this incident with a fine tooth comb. They looked at every single peice of wreckage. They spent years on the investigation, These investigators are the best of the best. They concluded that the TWA airplane blew up because of a central fuel tank explosion, and not via a missile or a bomb.

Please note that another 747 was suspected of being blown up by a central fuel tank explosion. In this case it was an Iranian military 747 that blew up in the 1970s in very similar circumstances.


So, please forgive me, if I get annoyed, and state that this conspiracy story is bulls**t
complete and utter bull****
I hope everyone in this thread is now a little better informed, and can forget about this totally bull**** story



the end

willmarsh3
06-20-2013, 08:52 AM
How would a missile cause the front of the plane to break off cleanly?

Here are other center fuel tank explosions: http://www.b737.org.uk/thai737news.htm

BrianY
06-20-2013, 02:40 PM
It was space aliens.

Really. There are witnesses.

Breakaway
06-20-2013, 03:29 PM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Breakaway http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=3826293#post3826293)

....several people who said they did see a "streak" before hearing the boom....
This is always the case with any explosion that is observed from a distance. Bear in mind that light travels much faster than sound, so the explosion would be seen well before being heard.

Noted.

I should clarify that those claiming to have seen the streak could also see the plane from where they were on the beach and in their boats. Specifically, they saw the plane flying along while sunbathing/chiiling out, saw some sort of streak near the plane, saw the explosion, then heard the explosion.

Kevin

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-20-2013, 03:31 PM
An RAF Nimrod was lost over Afghanistan because of a fuel tank explosion - NOT a Taliban missile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force_Nimrod_XV230#Board_of_Inquiry_find ings

Roger Cumming
06-20-2013, 10:50 PM
The short answer is no.