TWA Flight 800 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
If there is, as the whistleblowers claim, damage to the skin from an EXTERNAL blast, the the documentary is worth watching. There was, at the time, a "political reason" NOT to call it terrorism.
 
I suspect there was somebody with some information on that plane who could not be allowed to share it, dooming all souls aboard to the same fate
 
I suspected a missile back when it happened. I thought the Government might be covering it up so as not to cause social disorder, such as lynchings. If it was a missile, who know who was responsible for it?

After all this time has gone by, it is a little late for a new investigation to be useful.
 
If anyone missed it, the documentary comes out on July 17th. Im looking very forward to watching it. I also think that the fuel tank theory is false, as it seems like it could've happened again.
 
Filmmakers always want to change the course of history...especially Oliver Stone..
 
It was an old early 1970's 747 "A" model, with the three windows on the second deck. A "131" model, first type ever built...

Almost 100,000 hours on the frame, and exceeded Boeing's limits on cycles (takeoff/landings) and on number of pressurizations of the cabin.

Three other 747-131's were stripped down and found to have deteriorating wiring...and a host of other problems.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I said missile from day one, along with millions of other people.


Yep.
 
We had the NTSB chairman give a talk to our professional group about this investigation. He walked us through their findings in detail.

He expalined the missle theory as follows:

After the explosion, the nose of the aircraft separated from the rest of the fuselage. Since the engines were still running, this caused the aircraft to ascend for a while.

The people who witnessed this event were some 10 miles away. At that distance, it takes 50 seconds for the sound of the explosion to reach them.

Since few, if any, people were actually looking at the plane during the explosion event, the explosion would only turn heads and draw attention 50 seconds later. At that point people see a flaming object rising in the distant sky. They don't know what it was. A missle was the only thing they could think of at the moment.

Once they hear on the news that a plane exploded and went down, their memory tells them they saw a missle.

I find it hard to believe that many people were watching the plane at the moment of explosion (or before). But I do find it credible that the sound of the explosion drew the attention of a lot of people who turned their heads and saw a pulsating fireball rising into the distant sky.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I said missile from day one, along with millions of other people.


I was one of those too.
 
Originally Posted By: renegade_987
If anyone missed it, the documentary comes out on July 17th. Im looking very forward to watching it. I also think that the fuel tank theory is false, as it seems like it could've happened again.
That was my thought as well. Some expensive mods were made to the center tank of the 747 on the basis of that "accident". Perhaps all for political cover. Few expect CLinton would have done otherwise.
 
The main problem with the missile theory is that nobody claimed responsibility. What would be the point of a terrorist attack if you don't take credit for it? Also, they recovered 95% of the aircraft, I believe, why no missile parts? There were also no radar indications of either a missile or an aircraft on a course to launch a missile at the time of the attack. The other thing, of course, is that none of the bodies showed signs of explosive injuries. I tend to discount conspiracy theories for the simple reason that there are just never enough real facts to make them credible.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: mattwithcats
It was an old early 1970's 747 "A" model, with the three windows on the second deck. A "131" model, first type ever built...

Almost 100,000 hours on the frame, and exceeded Boeing's limits on cycles (takeoff/landings) and on number of pressurizations of the cabin.

Three other 747-131's were stripped down and found to have deteriorating wiring...and a host of other problems.



Original -100 models of the 747 had 3 windows, but were modified to 9 windows in the early 70's including the TWA 747's.

No way a missile brought down that airplane. A heat seeking missile would go for one of the engines, not the cold fueslage. And no way you could keep 100-200 sailors quiet about shooting down an airliner.

Secondly, center tank pumps need fuel to keep them cool, on that flight, the center tank was almost empty, and per Boeing procedure, you run the center tank fuel pumps intil the fuel pressure light illuminates. Without the cool fuel around the pumps, the boost pumps get extremely warm. Combine a hot fuel pump with fuel vapors and you could get an explosion, like what happened on TWA 800.

I have seen fuel pumps that were removed from the center tank and the steel was color changed due to the extreme heat from being run without cooling fuel.

The problem was so serious that the NTSB and Boeing changed the procedure on the 747, 757, 767 airplanes to shut off the center tank fuel pumps with 1,000# of fuel remaining to ensure that the pumps were only run when there was cooling fuel available.

My .02
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: guyonearth
The main problem with the missile theory is that nobody claimed responsibility. What would be the point of a terrorist attack if you don't take credit for it? Also, they recovered 95% of the aircraft, I believe, why no missile parts? There were also no radar indications of either a missile or an aircraft on a course to launch a missile at the time of the attack. The other thing, of course, is that none of the bodies showed signs of explosive injuries. I tend to discount conspiracy theories for the simple reason that there are just never enough real facts to make them credible.

I agree.

People see what they want to see. I've heard that witnesses in court are generally unreliable since they have had time to think it over and discuss it with other people. In this case, if what people saw looked strange and someone started crying "It was a missile!" then that's what most would start believing. Just like the WTC with so many people saying it was a controlled demolition. Not to get on that subject, of course.

No groups back then claimed responsibility and no sailors have come forward regarding a cover-up. Unless it was some homegrown terrorist nutjob with a Stinger out in a fishing boat, I'll say it was an accident until compelling evidence disproves it. I'm looking forward to this documentary.
 
Everybody loves a good conspiracy. These dudes wait until they grab their full pensions and the release some new concocted documentary, to come forward. James Kallstrom told it like is in the CNN interview yesterday posted in the link below (3rd video from top).

CNN: Flight 800 Conspiracy? Where's proof?

But hey everbody knows "them boys on the Grassy Knoll they were dead within three hours, buried in the [censored] desert, unmarked graves out past Terlingua." And the moon landing was staged.

Tin foil hats anyone?
 
The plane sat on the tarmac (don't remember where) for an hour with AC packs running, on a 90+ degree day.
AC packs (climate control) are right next to or above the center fuel tank.
NTSB said temps in the center tank were estimated to be 160 + degrees, well above vaporization point of jet fuel...
 
Actually the ballistic evidence is what swayed me. Just review that and then let us know how you feel.

People's mindless urge to simply follow whatever the media disgorges is a bit scary to an independent thinker...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top