A mistake TWA 800

Here we have a good interview with Stew Peters about a naval accident that happened by lighting up the night sky and accidentally taking the lives of over two hundred commuters heading to Paris. This happened in peacetime and was basically just a routine naval exercise that went horribly wrong.But the interesting thing is how it was dealt with. In Bermuda a day or so later all the logs were wiped people were warned if they talked about it their lives wouldn't be worth living. The Captain was heard to say "what sort of idiots are they that they put the key in" Which begs the question of actually how many more mistakes happened which we think were just accidents. This seaman was told to keep it shut but the truth has a way of slipping through the cracks.www.bitchute.com...

So it wasn't a stinger fired from a small boat that missed the EL AL flight just ahead of TWA 800?

a reply to: dashen

Hitting the center of radar mass and guillotining the aircraft looks more like a continuous rod warhead with a substantial explosive payload that would come from a much larger missile.

a reply to: dashen

The engagement altitude of a Stinger is roughly 13,000 feet. TWA 800 was between 15,000 and 17,000 at the time of the explosion. It was out of range of a Stinger.

originally posted by: dashen
So it wasn't a stinger fired from a small boat that missed the EL AL flight just ahead of TWA 800?

No. A stinger is an IR tracking missile and would home in on one of the engines. The missile that hit TWA 800 was seen to rise up above the altitude of the aircraft and come down on it from above, just before the explosion. That is the type of trajectory that a radar guided missile follows.

a reply to: 1947boomer

A Stinger may target center mass in this case, due to the AC packs being so hot. It would be more likely to target an engine, but depending on angle it was aimed, it MIGHT track the packs in the center fuselage. But they were too high for a Stinger to hit them at the time of the explosion.

a reply to: Zaphod58

A 1kg warhead on an IR homer doesn't fit the damage profile.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 1947boomer

A Stinger may target center mass in this case, due to the AC packs being so hot. It would be more likely to target an engine, but depending on angle it was aimed, it MIGHT track the packs in the center fuselage. But they were too high for a Stinger to hit them at the time of the explosion.

True, an IR tracking missile would track on the most prominent heat source, which might or might not be an engine. However, it wouldn't fly the same optimum intercept profile that a radar guided missile would follow. The closest observer on the scene was a pilot flying helicopters for (I believe) the New York Air National Guard. He had been a multi-thousand hour F-4 pilot in Vietnam and had seen many SA-6 missiles fired at him and his fellow pilots. He described the missile attack on TWA 800 as looking just like one of those. Because of its small warhead, a Stinger basically has to explode on contact. The larger radar guided missiles have fragmentation warheads that explode some distance away from the target and produce a shotgun blast type of pattern with incendiary fragments. Much higher probability of a kill.

Just popping in to thank contributors for a "fascinating and educational discussion".

For those (like me) who knew ZILCH about TWA Flight 800 before coming across this thread.

Here's a Good Summary: en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: 1947boomer
An expanding rod warhead would guillotine the aircraft cleanly at the center of radar mass as was seen.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Yep. If it was a missile (which I'm still not entirely convinced of), it was definitely a SAM class, and not a MANPADS.

Well i certainly learned new things in this thread

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 1947boomer

Yep. If it was a missile (which I'm still not entirely convinced of), it was definitely a SAM class, and not a MANPADS.

What I am convinced of is that the "official" CIA explanation is total bull puckey. They came up with this cartoon that showed the the 747 climbing several thousand feet after getting 25 feet of the nose sheared off. That totally defies the laws of physics. It's laughable, actually. The fact that they would put out something like that as their final word tells me that they were covering something.

And by the way, why was the CIA the one putting out these "explanations"? By law, the National Transportation Safety Board is supposed to be the lead agency for air crashes.

a reply to: 1947boomer

The CIA animation was laughable. But that doesn’t immediately mean a missile was involved. Trying to keep a naval crew quiet, outside of the subs, is a lot harder than “Don’t say anything”. And fuel tank explosions at the time were happening scarily often.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Not if they didn't want to look stupid. You just can't have it known that the taxpayer-funded service shoots down commercial aircraft. It might have been an idiot. But it's not like they don't cover up these things. Like wet starting a jet on an aircraft carrier for a blast comes to mind. If your daddy is an admiral it gets forgotten fast. In fact, It would be interesting to know how many deaths and injuries in a true combat situation are caused by home runs.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 1947boomer

And fuel tank explosions at the time were happening scarily often.

Where ?

TWA 800 was the first and only time in the history of commercial/civilian aviation

originally posted by: anonentity
Here we have a good interview with Stew Peters about a naval accident that happened by lighting up the night sky and accidentally taking the lives of over two hundred commuters heading to Paris. This happened in peacetime and was basically just a routine naval exercise that went horribly wrong.But the interesting thing is how it was dealt with. In Bermuda a day or so later all the logs were wiped people were warned if they talked about it their lives wouldn't be worth living. The Captain was heard to say "what sort of idiots are they that they put the key in" Which begs the question of actually how many more mistakes happened which we think were just accidents. This seaman was told to keep it shut but the truth has a way of slipping through the cracks.www.bitchute.com...

No. The information in the OP has been discredited. No such things happened. I don’t know why people keep spreading this garbage.

TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories are discredited alternative explanations of the crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 (TWA 800) in 1996.[1] The NTSB found that the probable cause of the crash of TWA Flight 800 was an explosion of flammable fuel/air vapors in a fuel tank, most likely from a short circuit. Conspiracy theories claim that the crash was due to a U.S. Navy missile test gone awry, a terrorist missile strike, or an on-board bomb. In 2013, a documentary alleging that the investigation into the crash was a cover-up made news headlines with statements from six members of the original investigation team, now retired, who also filed a petition to reopen the probe.[2]

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 1947boomer

The CIA animation was laughable. But that doesn’t immediately mean a missile was involved. Trying to keep a naval crew quiet, outside of the subs, is a lot harder than “Don’t say anything”. And fuel tank explosions at the time were happening scarily often.

By itself, I agree that the CIA animation doesn’t necessarily say what the cause was, but they certainly knew that the animation was a cover story and was false. I’m a professional aerospace engineer and I can figure out that the physics of the animation was all wrong. The CIA would undoubtedly have had equally qualified aerospace engineers working on the problem and they would have known that the animation was wrong also. The CIA clearly and knowingly put out a false story. That means that they wanted to conceal the true story. That sort of implies that they knew what the real story was and that it was uncomfortable for some reason.

I’m also taking into account the testimony of the NY ANG pilot and numerous other witnesses who saw pyrotecnics ascending from sea level and flying toward the 747.

With regard to fuel tank explosions; at the time, my brother was working for one of the main companies that made fire detection and extinguishing systems, including the types used on 747s. He said there had never been an explosion on a 747 center tank before or since. I’m curious as to what fuel tank explosions were happening at the time?

a reply to: ChiefD
CIA involvement and USN comm traffic immediately after the incident say otherwise.

a reply to: anonentity

A solid witness that explains why the few witnesses were ignored.

If one chooses not to believe this is what could've happened. Then it's
likely they don't believe it's even possible. And that is irrational.