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

Originally posted by verschickter
John Lear could have been right (again).
2nd

edit on 19-6-2013 by verschickter because: (no reason given)

I was just gonna say this. John has been saying this for years. His sources told him it was a missile from a sub doing tests...the missile locked onto the aircraft...as they do...but somehow it fired.

reply to post by Zaphod58


The CIA is an international affairs specialist, especially with terroristic type events, not bound by international borders...

An arab based jetliner is deliberately crashed off of our coastline as determined by our own agencies, but the CIA decided to stay away from that one. Not to mention that it crashed 3 yrs after TWA 800, in the same general vicinity, having departed from the same airport.

My point is the previous posters reasoning for CIA involvement in TWA 800 doesn't seem to be consistent with these types of incidents.

Originally posted by verschickter
John Lear could have been right (again).
2nd

edit on 19-6-2013 by verschickter because: (no reason given)

Im interested in that theory as well.

Since it is highly speculated that the plane was shot down, I am very curious as to whom/ what could done this, and why.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Conspiracy theorists everywhere should feel a bit vindicated by this.
But even more important, we all should be glad that the truth is finally coming out.

Yes...as of late, Conspiracy Theorists are feeling highly vindicated...Big Brother, the U.S. motives in other countries, and plane 'accidents'....

Interesting times....

reply to post by PhotonEffect


The CIA was ASKED to do the animation for TWA 800. They didn't just suddenly say "Hey, we're going to make this animation up to show what happened." In the case of 990, they weren't asked to make an animation for it, so they didn't.

At the start of FBI's investigation, because of the possibility that international terrorists might have been involved, assistance was requested from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[99] CIA analysts, relying on sound-propagation analysis, were able to conclude that the witnesses could not be describing a missile approaching an intact aircraft, but were seeing a trail of burning fuel coming from the aircraft after the initial explosion.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by amazing


Yes- John lear posted some interesting thoughts on this in a thread I started 5 years ago.

Here's some of what he said.

Originally posted by johnlear
These are the facts as I believe them to be in the case of TWA Flight 800.

1. A secret missile was being tested by the Navy near civilian airspace using civilian airliners as simulated targets.

2. The testing area was "hot", a detail of which TWA 800 was not advised.

3. An accident occurred during the launch of the missile whereby the Navy lost control of the guidance system and the missile began tracking the TWA Boeing 747.

4. The son of a Navy Officer who was on the missile ship called his father and told him "Dad, we accidentally shot it down".

5. Over 150 witnesses saw some sort of flare rising from the water to the aircraft. None of these witnesses was allowed to testify at the NTSB hearing.

6. The crew of Pakstani Internatinal Airlines called ATC right after the crash and told them they had seen a missile rise up from the ocean and hit TWA 800.

7. A radar blip was seen by a Long Island FAA radar technician who reported seeing "conflicting radar tracks that indicated a missile," immediately preceding the moments before flight 800 disappeared

8. A copy of this radar tape in the possession of a former TWA pilot was confiscated by the government and has not been introduced as evidence.

9. A swatch from a cabin seat was proved conclusively to have on it missile fuel.

James Sanders, a retired police officer and Investigative reporter to whom the swatch had been given and who had the tests performed by an independent agency was sent to jail by the government.

10. Navy SEAL divers were sent the scene within hours and were the only persons who had access to the wreckage for the first 3 days after the crash.

The SEALS were able to remove and hide any evidence that would implicate a Navy missile in the tragedy.

11. To assure their complicity in the coverup TWA and Boeing who were in a position to know exactly what happened were each given an offer they couldn't refuse by the government.

Boeing was allowed to merge with McDonnell-Douglas, the government having withdrawn their anti-trust objections.

TWA was guaranteed over 350 million dollars in private loans to help cover the costs of the accident.

There exists incontrovertible evidence with the FAA radar tapes, the missile residue on the cabin seats, the over 130 eye witness reports, the Navy SEAL team actions and the fact that President Clinton was facing re-election little more than 3 months away and could ill afford a highly publicized government screw up for which we might be ultimately blamed, that the downing of TWA flight 800 was, in fact, an accidental shootdown by the US Navy.

It was the U.S. Navy's 5th accidental airliner shootdown, the first being a Flying Tiger Line Lockheed Constellation full of soldiers headed for Viet Nam in 1963. While over Guam, a Navy fighter pilot had been using the Constellation for target practice when he accidentally shot it down.

Flying Tiger Line, Bob Prescott (President) and Fred Benninger (vice-President) were rewarded for their help in the cover-up by being awarded the major share of the Viet Nam conflict cargo contracts. FTL also started another airline called Flying Tiger Air Services, Inc. which flew military cargo and passengers between Japan and Viet Nam.

The center tank boost pump story was pure government fraud.

Under no conditions of any sort would or could a center fuel tank pump explode or set of an explosion. I am a pilot and a mechanic and I flew Boeing airplanes for 30 years. That is totally and completely false. The vapour-arc-appropriate mix of air oxygen occurring in the tank, any tank of any Boeing airplane is sheer fiction. At the time that fairy tale came out I was flying Lockheed L-1011 cargo places into Wichita to pick up 777 engine cowlings for Boeing Seattle. You should have heard those Boeing mechanics ridicule and rip to shreds that arcing theory.

Boeing agreed to admit that the fuel tank pump started the conflagration on the 747-100 series only, in return for being allowed to merge with McDonnell Douglas. Boeing agreed to the 747-100 because many of them were out of service and it would not affect their current customers of any series after the 100.

TWA agreed not pursue a criminal action against the Navy in return for a $350 million dollar private, low interest loan.

The passengers were left with FBI Director Kalstroms empty promise “We’ll find the culprit’s.”

The rest of what he says can be found in the original thread.

TWA 800 shot down? YES. With a missile? Maybe not

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by GArnold

 

I read the article, and at one point I thought it was shot down too. But the more I looked into missiles that could do it, the less I believe it.

You didn't have to say anything about shoulder fired anything, but the only missiles it could have been would be shoulder fired. If it was either a sub launched anti-aircraft missile, or fired from an Aegis, the signature would be hundreds of times bigger than a shoulder fired missile, and would have been seen by just about everyone that said they saw something flying towards the explosion site.

So I started watching the epix documentary. Zaphod your saying these 6 investigators with combined over 120 years working for NTSB or ATF and vast experience with both TWA aircraft and explosives are wrong... Because you looked into it and you can't figure it out? Your saying these 183!!! Witness's who saw something streaking in the sky are totally unreliable despite them having unquestioned integrity. You would rather buy into what the Govt claims brought the plane down despite the fact most of the evidence they presented has been laughed at. Your claiming this helicopter pilot with combat experience in Vietnam and nothing to gain by saying so is making up what he claims he saw. "I saw a vapor trail streak across the night and several explosions (4 or 5) at the exact location the TWA flight 800 was at". Your saying he is wrong and lying because you looked into it and it does not make sense to you?

Frankly I will believe these NTSB investigators who have combined for over a hundred years experience and investigated over 100 accidents between them over you who has 0 experience working for NTSB or ATF and been in on 0 aircraft investigations in actual real life.

reply to post by KewlDaddyFatty


Yes, I'm aware of this, but it can also show false returns, and duplicate returns as well. One of the things I want to know is if this is the raw return, that filters out things like birds and boats, or are we looking at the filtered return. As well as some more information about the radar screen, and the radar used that day.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I mean the very snippet you pulled sounds ridiculous about what they determined from their "analysis"

People saw something going up. That says no, they really saw something going down.

Were over 100 people that night who saw the upward trajectory before explosion suffering from vertigo?

ETA:

They were ASKEd to cover it up...

reply to post by Zaphod58


Believe me.

That's what I want to know too.

strange, I cant put a link to an eyewitness report stating that they had seen a orange streak of light going up towards the twa800 I will keep trying


www.dailymail.co.uk... g-230-hit-explosions-OUTSIDE-aircraft.html has this been posted yet ? at least its being discussed here in the uk which is good shame I cant find the link that I tried to post much earlier today it seems to have "disappeared"

reply to post by GArnold


Just because someone works as an NTSB investigator doesn't mean that they are experts in everything. Do you even understand how a Go Team works? They have areas that are their expertise that they focus on. That doesn't mean they're experts in everything. One of the "experts" in the video was one of the people in charge of rebuilding the interior of the cabin. How does that make him an expert on fuel tanks?

The NTSB has a ton of data that shows that the fuel in a tank, at low levels, is almost constantly right in the middle of the flammability range for Jet A fuel. But this "expert" in fuel tanks (that was rebuilding the interior of the cabin and not the fuel tanks for some reason), claims that there is nothing that could have pushed the fuel vapor temperature high enough to cause an explosion. Despite data that shows that it's already above the flash point at take off, just from the air conditioning unit, heating the tank.

The witnesses saw something in the sky. What exactly makes them experts in what they saw? What makes it impossible that they were mistaken in what they saw, or that it wasn't something else?

It's entirely possible that they are right, but with the evidence on hand, and relying so much on eyewitness testimony, I'm going to go with the physical evidence that has been released and that can be looked into.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


But regardless, the CIA was asked to do the animation for the TWA investigation. They weren't asked to do crap for Egyptair, because of the way that investigation was run..

A very interesting video. I have never been entirely happy with the official verdict, so I am curious to see where this leads. Just for the record.....was the "splatter pattern" on the centre fuel tank on the inside or outside of the plane?

I watched the documentary. If you are sitting here arguing, please watch it. It is very thourough, and introduces new evidence that hasn't even been brought up in the arguments. There was a splatter pattern found across the top of the center fuel tank, and it was tested by NASA, and was determined to contain Nitrates consistent with explosives. This spatter pattern was found across the entire top of the fuel tank, and the pattern is consistent across fractures of the tank. It suggests that something explosive happened before the tank was ripped apart. A fuel tank explosion cannot mark the top of itself if it explodes from within in this manner. When an investigator who was pushing the official story in the video was presented with a copy of a report, that the Nasa tech kept a copy of, he suddenly changed his tune, and started back peddling, and couldn't answer why the report for a part he sent out for analysis was ignored, and not introduced as evidence.
Please just watch the documentary before arguing the facts of the case. There is plenty of credible evidence in this documentary. In addition, the petition to open a new investigation was signed by the families and the 4 investigators last July 12, this has been brewing for a while.

reply to post by Zaphod58

No matter how you fuse it, 10 pounds of explosives is not going to cause a large commercial airliner to shatter like that, unless it's a Hollywood movie.

Unless it is something special that you do not know about, which is designed specifically to take out Hind Helicopters by flying above them and having a downward pointing shaped charge to break the main rotor blades.

reply to post by Zaphod58


So your saying in fact these investigators are lying and wrong. Your saying these witnesses are lying and wrong. Your saying the Vietnam helicopter pilot who had a front row seat and nothing to gain is lying and wrong. You have physically handled the evidence? You have taken samples and sent them out to labs and had it analyzed? Where can I go to analyze the physical evidence as you apparently did? What labs did you use? Explain again how 183 people did not see what they claim to have seen? How do you respond to the point by point breakdown of John Leers post with it broken down point by point. I am not seeing any logic in your arguments here except you think The Govt is right because you as an amateur have concluded it could not have been a missile after your investigated every aspect of the physical evidence and had things sent out to a independent lab? Or did you just look at pictures online and that was about the extent of your evidence/investigation.

“..This team of investigators who actually handled the wreckage and victims’ bodies, prove that the officially proposed fuel-air explosion did not cause the crash,” reads a statement by the producers of the film, which will debut on cable network EPIX next month. “They also provide radar and forensic evidence proving that one or more ordnance explosions outside the aircraft caused the crash.”

www.foxnews.com...

Not long ago, I saw a very interesting documentary on this very subject. It ran about 1/2 hour, and interviewed eyewitnesses who saw the missile head toward the plane....then the explosion, It also interviewed a Vietnam pilot, who knew, without a doubt, that it was exploded by "ordinance". Also, they interviewed two men who took actual samples, from inside the plane, and found red, explosive residue on them...I think they were arrested for taking "evidence"..There were also residents of Long island who actually saw the missile, and the explosion, but were told to keep quiet...or interviewed once, and never spoken to again.....This was on a site that I marked as 'Underground Videos.com"...but, when I went to find it today, in light of all of this "news", all I found was porn sites.....Surely, another ATS'r has found this before???.. If so, can you hook us up with the site so everybody can see it??? Thanks, in advance!

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by JarsCloutLife

 

I remember the flare story(excuse) from the military also.

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

Yes.

I remember the 'mystery missile' that came up out of the Pacific Ocean near California a few years ago....