TWA Flight 800 investigators break silence in new documentary, claim original conclusion about caus

reply to post by Arbitrageur


yessss!

I figured I was being an idiot....and I considered a search, but the letters "El Al" look very distinctly military/sciency nomenclatureish. I just figgured I wasn't in on the jargon.

reply to post by pslr2301

The link given does indeed have the video listed. I am unsure of the rules about posting it here so I will just say that the link to watch the rough cut of the documentary is listed in the 4th paragraph down. =) Going to watch now!

No it hasn't aired but there's a press release link that's already been posted twice in the first few pages of the thread. It's been posted a third time for you.

Thanks, was unaware that roughcut WAS the video in question, guess I got confused with all the articles, including CNN saying it's been yet to be released. I'll spend my lunch watching

reply to post by butcherguy

That's what caused the 'Phoenix Lights' too, according to the military.

No, they claimed that was routine flare drops, not a missile system test.

reply to post by pslr2301

The link given does indeed have the video listed. I am unsure of the rules about posting it here so I will just say that the link to watch the rough cut of the documentary is listed in the 4th paragraph down. =) Going to watch now!

I don't see what that wouldn't be allowed, but better to play it safe right? besides, it's obviously an important documentary so I doubt you'll get into trouble.

I'm wondering what, if any, differences the rough cut will have compared to the full aired version. hopefully that version, if different, will trickle down to the masses who don't have access to watch it, er, legally.

It was a prototype of a patiot missle that brought TWA down, I'm pretty sure of it.

2nd.

reply to post by Nuke2013


I think it was the Aegis (probably spelt wrong) missile system that was being tested at the time.

I'm 20 minutes into the video. It's riveting. Everyone needs to see this.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


A target missile getting missed, and and the tracking missile locking onto another target, TWA 800 seems plausible, but doesn't the operator have a self-destruct button. Double negligence and a cover up.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters

I'm 20 minutes into the video. It's riveting. Everyone needs to see this.

What video is it that you are watching?

I want to see it.

Originally posted by EViLKoNCEPTz
reply to post by minkmouse

 

That video is still out there, however I don't think flight 800 was hit by a SAM. I think it was hit by a large caliber rifle from a private vessel, probably using penetrator rounds to rupture the fuel tank and ignite the fuel. A SAM would have done a lot more damage if it was a direct impact. Otherwise the SAM would have had to air burst, throwing shrapnel and the shockwave into the plane to down it. There was no radar evidence of a SAM which is what leads me to believe a large caliber rifle was used since even the largest rifle projectiles aren't big enough to leave a radar signature. It would have had to be a .50 or .700 using white phosphorus or DU penetrator rounds to take the plane down with a single shot through the fuel tank in the wing.

If you look at the separation of the nose at the wing root and then look up "expanding rod warhead" and "center of radar mass" you will soon come to the conclusion that it was a shoot down with a missile. Maybe no one claimed it because it was an unintended launch or the local Jihadis were trying for the El Al plane and shot down the wrong one.

reply to post by minkmouse


I remember seeing it as well... My initial conclusion based on that video was that there was no way this could be deemed an accident. But, alas, it vanished!

Originally posted by butcherguy
What video is it that you are watching?

I want to see it.

From another member post on page 3:

Originally posted by NickDC202
As the OP refers to the new EPIX documentary which debuts on Monday, 17 July 2013 and the new information it reveals; I think people may have missed the hidden treasure in the EPIX Press Release that I posted earlier here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hint: No need to wait until 17 July 2013....

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


I'm the one who initially shared the link to the video which airs on 17 July 2013. It is on the front page and I posted it two other times throughout the thread.

A huge THANK YOU to everyone who is participating in this thread. As I mentioned in previous posts in this thread as a teenager living on Long Island and working as a lifeguard at a south shore beach, TWA 800 had a profound impact on me; after viewing the video on television of an object rapidly gaining elevation, a slight pause and then an explosion of TWA flight 800 and staying glued to the media yet never seeing or hearing about this video again (as if it never existed). I couldn't understand how this could happen (I knew I saw it and I even had woken up my parents and they viewed it), I couldn't understand why everything I heard directly from people involved with the recovery pointed to nothing but the flight being taken down by an outside object; yet the government was denying it was a missile or a terrorist attack. As a young news junkie who treasured our democracy and the openness of our government it was TWA 800 that opened my eyes to the need to look deeper into things that don't exactly add up. Without TWA 800, I may never have discovered sites like this that encourage a healthy dialogue about such things.

That being said, this wonderful discussion we're having in this thread means so much to me; watching the documentary last night and hearing the truth from many investigators directly involved with TWA 800 was both a confirmation of what all the evidence showed me in 1996 but also made me ashamed that our government was able to pull off such an elaborate cover up and the US public had to wait 17 years to actually learn most of the truth.

While the documentary thoroughly analyzed actual, factual evidence and presented both sides of the story and demonstrates beyond doubt that an outside object impacted TWA 800 causing it to explode, it does not highlight the fact that the EL AL flight was scheduled to be in that flight path but due to the EL AL flight being delayed at the gate, TWA 800 took off first. It also didn't examine the international military training exercises being conducted at that time off the coast of the Island. But frankly, it didn't have to go into either of those facts and it is probably better that the documentary didn't because establishing that an outside object brought down the flight is the most important thing needed right now and the documentary did that without a doubt.

The clip I saw of the investigators coming forward had some pretty deliberate phrasing and word choice.

"...an explosion from outside the craft..."

When you eliminate the possibility of the notorious exploding goose, that doesn't leave too many other options.

I remember discussion at that time of an errant US Navy missile test and conflicting discussion of a terrorist Stinger-Missile fired from a pleasure craft.

Are these investigators saying they were silenced, or that new evidence has changed their minds?

It seems the options are:

1. Accidental US Navy shoot-down
2. Terrorist attack.
3. Intentional US Navy shoot down.
4. Unknown attack.
5. The original conclusion was right.

From what I remember, I think that option one is the most likely. The only problem I have with that is that a lot of people would have had to stay silent for a very long time,

I know the hot and sexy term on ATS these days is FALSE FLAG ATTACK, but that must be on the table in this case if there is to be a full and free discussion on what really happened.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
I'm wondering what, if any, differences the rough cut will have compared to the full aired version. hopefully that version, if different, will trickle down to the masses who don't have access to watch it, er, legally.

Differences I Anticipate Between the Rough Cut EPIX Shared with the Media and the Version that will Air:
- At the end of the documentary after the credits there is some B Roll that will likely be used to develop promotional commercials for the film.

- At the beginning of the film there is studio info/jargon before the opening credits air.

- There were a few transitions which, as someone who works in the media, in my professional opinion need to be smoothed.

Otherwise, I would not anticipate any changes in content/context as EPIX would not present something to the media to watch before July 17 and then air something that is different to the public.

reply to post by NickDC202


I imagine they will probably eliminate the graphic footage of the victims. I personally don't think it was necessary to the story

Thank you for sharing this video by the way.

It seems that the MSM has picked this up this morning, all major news sites are running stories on the doc right now.

This could be huge.

Wow that EPIX documentary was something else.... If you haven't watched it yet, you honestly should. It's a little long, 1 hour 45 minutes long, but so worth it... High quality documentary for sure

Originally posted by Leonidas
Are these investigators saying they were silenced, or that new evidence has changed their minds?

They claim there was a gag order in place at the time of the investigation preventing them from talking about it, which isn't hard to believe. I understood why the FBI did some things it did, like removing evidence to test in their lab, but I don't understand why the FBI told the NTSB investigator he wasn't allowed to take a picture of a certain piece of the aircraft that had holes in it. The way he tells the story it's like the FBI told him he can't do his job. If that claim is true why wouldn't the FBI want photos to be taken of the piece with holes in it?

Whatever the true cause, it seems apparent that cooperation between the FBI and NTSB wasn't very good and had plenty of friction.

I have followed the TWA800 story since it occurred. I remember the event very clearly and I remember thinking at the time that it was a terrorist bomb. For those of you that can recall remember the Ramsey Yousef trial was set to begin within days of that event. Ramsey Yousef has been reported to have indicated to cell mates that the he had something to do with the crash. For those who hold to the center fuel tank explosion theory what evidence do you have to support this? Let me correct that what independent evidence do you have to support this? Evidence not filtered out by the FBI and NTSB?
If the FBI and NTSB wanted to alter evidence, disregard witnesses, and make evidence disappear do you concede that they could do that?
So if it could be shown that the Federal government had the motive to drive the investigation toward a result do you contest that they had the means and opportunity to do so?
I don’t think you can deny that to be the case. That’s not to say that there was indeed a terrorist attack, just that had the government wanted to cover up an attack that they could do so.
I do not hold to the theory that this was a Blue on Blue shoot down by the US Navy. I don’t think that could be really covered up. I suspect that the Navy was indeed testing in the area that night and that Navy personnel who reported that they had been involved in an accident were simply putting 2 and 2 together. Many are jumping to the idea of a MANPAD being used to bring down the aircraft and that seems reasonable given the common held belief that MANPADS were given to the Muj fighting the Russians and again jumping to the conclusion that one of these Stingers found its way into the hands of the attackers. If this was a missile attack we have no way of knowing what missile was involved. As many have pointed out the obvious MANPADS are probably not capable of bringing down an aircraft that size. There are however many different antiaircraft missiles out there that are more than capable of doing the job. Many of these are rather compact systems that could easily be deployed on a small boat. Small as in commercial fishing boat size. Launching from over the horizon would have shielded any flash from visibility from the shore. Indeed radar tracks from the area indicate a couple of commercial size boats in that general area and outside of the regular shipping routes that could have been the launching platform for a missile. There is no evidence that the FBI or NTSB every followed up with those contacts to identify the boats and interview the occupants. These individuals would have been in a prime location to provide eyewitness testimony of the event. In fact I for one believe that one of these boats was indeed the launch point and a missile was the cause of the explosion. I believe that the government had more than ample motive to cover up the attack. Keep in mind that Clinton hates the military. The first WTC bombing was sold as the work of a small group of radical jihadists that made a bomb in their rental warehouse. The presence of a Surface to Air Missile with the capability to bring down a commercial passenger jet is the very fingerprint of State sponsorship. The American public would have demanded military action to respond to that level of attack (see 9/11!). Bill Clinton HATES the military. He had no desire to provide the military with a reason to grow and expand its capabilities. He took office with a social agenda that required downsizing the military to fund. If the Military were to be needed to respond to a state sponsored terrorist attack they would prove that they were indeed still relevant in a post USSR collapse world. Clinton could not have that. This had to be an accident and not a missile shoot down. Thus the cover up. Evidence was indeed stolen or altered (the red residue of explosives all over the seats), Witness testimony was simply papered over with the ignorant “Zoom Climb” theory. People were silenced and the media was convinced to go along.
Sad times people sad times.

reply to post by Leonidas


Great points.

I mentioned in another post and can't emphasize enough the importance of keeping the following top of mind when examining the explosion of TWA Flight 800 in the evening of 17 July 1996:

1. On the evening of 19 July 1996 the US-hosted Centennial Olympic Games kicked off with the Opening Ceremonies at Centennial Olympic Stadium (now Turner Field) in Atlanta, Georgia.

2. The summer of 1996 was a busy period for the Presidential Campaign between President Bill Clinton and Senator Bob Dole. A foreign terrorist attack on US soil (ok, US waters) could have had a profound impact on the election outcome. (In retrospect it likely would not have changed the outcome, but in July of '96 Senator Dole was tied or leading in many polls; keep that in mind)