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

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That was pretty good and yes I enjoyed it. The host said he's not a fan of conspiracy theories but he found this case to be compelling. However I'm skeptical of his claim he's not interested in conspiracy theories, because he insisted that Kristina Borjesson should visit the "grassy knoll" which is kind of a famous site for conspiracy-related theories.

The host who mentioned the "grassy knoll" is the one of the three hosts who I am pretty sure either didn't see the documentary or, more likely, was trying to calibrate Borjesson and Stalcup to understand how deep into conspiracies they might be.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
They did mention something not in the documentary which was interesting to me because I hadn't heard it. I tried to transcribe it here, starting at about 7:40 time index, said by Tom Stalcup:

"There was a video of a missile five days before the crash over long island. The defense intelligence agency confirmed there was a missile on the videotape. There was an aircraft (unintelligible) AC mechanic on the roof of a hospital filming the sun rise, and the missile went up "hey, look at the rocket" and he brought it to the FBI after this crash thing and asked "is this significant?" They made ten copies. we requested those copies. They lost them. They're all gone."
(Host comments)
"They looked where they were supposed to be, they couldn't find them."

I wonder who's missile that was?

Then they talk about how the guy who made the video and his wife didn't want to get involved, and how other witnesses had been threatened...like the lady who was seeking her citizenship, and they told her not to say anything if she wanted to become a citizen (This part was in the documentary).

I had never heard about the guy on the roof of the hospital either before this interview. It is quite fascinating.

Considering the number of peripheral things the did NOT include in the documentary, things that may take focus off the evidence presented in the film, in many ways I think that it only increases the overall credibility of the presentation as is. If they went into all possible scenarios and documented the military exercises, potential terrorists (boat with tarp covering large object), the EL AL flight that was supposed to be in the flight path ahead of 800, the video of 800 exploding that aired overnight and completely disappeared, the political pressures to dissuade the FBI from concluding it was anything other than mechanical; all those things could merit their own (or combo of listed items) documentary.

Originally posted by Deirdre
Is there any insight into why the plane would be shot down? Who would benefit from that and how?

While the documentary doesn't delve into this area but chooses to focus on testimony/revelations from top investigators who became whistleblowers; I can share a few thoughts on your questions from my own research:

* Flight 800 occurred 24 hours before the start of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.

* An EL AL (Israeli Airline) flight was scheduled to fly that flight path before TWA 800 but was delayed at the gate.

* 1996 was a Presidential Election year and a terrorist act could have shifted the race dramatically because in that era the GOP was synonymous with strong national defense. It would have been Clinton's third big "terrorist" incident (previous two were the World Trade Center '93 and Oklahoma City)


* TWA 800's fiery wreckage rained into one Navy training area, it was not reserved for military duty that night, according to Federal Aviation Administration records. But a vast adjacent zone that starts about 12 miles from the crash site was activated for military use that night. Nearby, a special 7,790-square-mile area became off limits at 8 p.m., about the time TWA 800 was backing away from the passenger gate. The area was cleared for an exercise that included a Navy anti-submarine aircraft. A submarine also was involved in a mission, according to a Navy official.

* One missile theory involves the act of terrorists armed with a shoulder-mounted missile launcher, perhaps a Stinger. Older Stinger models, similar to the hundreds that the United States gave to Afghan freedom fighters battling Soviet forces in the 1980s, have a working range of about 13,000 feet and home in on infra-red waves generated by engine exhaust. But officials soon discounted the idea because the plane was at 13,700 feet when it exploded, at the older Stingers' outer limit. Also, most multiple-engine jets historically survive Stinger strikes after being hit in one engine. All four of TWA 800's engines were recovered and investigators said none showed missile damage. However, newer Stingers have a range of 24,000 feet and some can be directed at a plane's mass after following the heat, according to the latest edition of Jane's Land-Based Air Defence and missile industry experts.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I wonder who's missile that was?

Missile tests have associated NOTAMs. If the DIA was involved, one presumes it was not a test. However, this would have been such news that there would be a follow up. Presumably there is a DIA report to FOIA.

Note the DIA charter is for real time intelligence. Obviously they do more than that, but they need the real time capability to keep funded, else the CIA would do the job. While I can't rule out the DIA investigating a launch, it doesn't seem like the appropriate agency.

reply to post by gariac

Thanks for the reply. After reading it, I ran a search and found this:

twa800.com...

the FBI has released, apparently in error, a formerly totally redacted analysis of a video shot on L.I., New York on July 12, 1996. This was just 5 days before the July 17, 1996 disaster.

The video, analyzed by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) on July 23, 1996 "advised that after a visual analysis of both the videotape as well as a number of still photographs taken from various portions of the tape, the phenomenon captured by (redacted) appeared to be consistent with the exhaust plume from a MANPAD missile." While the document indicates there were scanned images of the still photographs attached as an appendix, Capt. Lahr received no accompanying photographic images.

MANPADS, short for the Man Portable Air Defense System missile is a highly effective weapon proliferated worldwide. Typically containing an Infrared (IR) seeker, the missile offers little opportunity for a warning before impact. Impacts are often lethal. Examples of lethality include 1) the Afghan mujahedeen killing of 269 Soviet aircraft with 340 such missiles, 2) Desert Storm evidence that IR missiles produced 56% of the kills and 79% of the Allied aircraft damaged, and 3) civil aircraft experiencing a 70% probability of a kill given a MANPADS hit.

So that supports your idea that maybe it wasn't an "official" missile test and there was probably not any NOTAM.

I really have no comment on why it would be analyzed by the Defense Intelligence Agency, as I don't know their mission and responsibilities. You seem to know more about it than me.

Ah, TWA 800, there were a couple of things about that I put on my old archived site for lack of anywhere else to put them. I'll link to them below in case it's of interest, but part I found most irritating about that subject was this:

Back then, I was involved with the remote viewing topic/people. True story, I was present for the phone call that started all this:

1. Notorious disinformation former-intelligence agent Ed Dames, asks (also former intell) Paul Smith if he will "do a [psychic] session on the mechanical failure that caused the crash."

Note:
a) it's not remote viewing if you know the information you're supposed to collect. Doh.
b) oddly he'd already decided that was the cause/outcome although it was still a 'mystery' then.

2. Paul does, and provides sketches of the plane etc., but says he doesn't know that this was really the cause.

3. Dames takes those sketches and appears on national television, showing the 'sketches from a remote viewer' of the 'mechanical failure.'

4. The officials announce that they actually have no idea what the cause is, but in the interests of "closure" they are going to rule it a mechanical failure.

You don't say.

Here is what a few other people had to say about it, including a letter to the editor from my hometown (Ojai CA) newspaper.

October 1996 Letter to the Editor from the California SUN
"I witnessed the crash of TWA Flight 800..."
firedocs.com...

March 1997 Article from Aviation Week Magazine
"ANG Pilot: TWA Jet Hit by Object"
firedocs.com...

April 1997 Commentary from pilot Robert Durant
"Here are some comments on the article and associated issues."
firedocs.com...

December 1997 Commentary (may be related to March 1997 article above)
"Eyewitness: Ordnance Blast Downed TWA 800."
firedocs.com...

July 1997 Article by Ian Williams Goddard, with link references
"Navy Missile Drone Debris Found at TWA Crash Site?"
firedocs.com...

Peace.

I also saw the missile video that night or next. It was blamed as a local fire work but I highly doubt that. The gov did a good job at covering this one up. The gov controls all the radar info so saying no radar tracks exist when I personally saw the missile fly up from that area on video and not one person denied it was the wrong area I know it was a cover up. Clearly the Navy was in the area and could have been jamming radar also in that small area over the ships.

minkmouse
I remember this event and I'll never forget a clip I saw on the news showing a surface to air missile being launched. The reporter said it was footage filmed by a tourist. Then...Bam! Never saw this video again, ever, anywhere. Then came the story of the center tank explosion which became the official line. In the back of my mind, I always wondered about the clip I'd seen and where the hell it went

I was dating a woman at the time that lived on long island (I wasn't in NY at the time of the event), and she loved to walk the beach at night. She was on the beach that night, and saw the whole thing. She called me and said she saw the red trail rise from the sea, and then a small explosion, then a not a second later, another much larger explosion in the sky.

When the Official story came out, we were both dumbfounded, and there was nobody in the news media willing to listen at all to her first hand story.

My roommate at the time that this happened was a night duty officer at a very small navy establishment that was located near the inlet of Fort Lauderdales port. It was actually located in John Lloyd Park. I called him the night it happened and he said he would talk to me when he got home.

The long and the short of it was he said one of their subs made a big booboo and I didnt hear it from him, but that yes, we shot it down.

I do have one question about the missing video because I just seem to remember seeing it myself that night if it involved a couple on the beach filming their romantic moment with the camera behind them? Like they were having a picnic and had walked up to the shoreline? For some reason that is what is in my head. Is that the same video?

Zaphod58
reply to post by HomerinNC

 

No, I'm saying that the evidence that I've seen to date points to a mechanical failure. The whistleblowers haven't said it was shot down, and haven't released any evidence to show that it was anything but a mechanical failure that I've seen yet. Expert doesn't always mean right, but I'll wait to see what new evidence they bring to the table.

I've seen a number of mechanical failures over the years, including fuel tank failures that have led to crashes, similar to this one. I've read up on just about every major commercial and military accident that I could get my hands on, and while fuel tank failures aren't common, they also aren't unheard of.

I love your posts Zaph and I respect your opinion.

But does your evidence include these witnesses accounts that I am watching right now.

There are hundreds of witnesses that say they say a "flare like trail" leading up to the plane.

Im not airplane technical so all I can say is that the expert says that the only wire leading to the fuel tank is not heavy enough to cause the kind of damage to the fuel tank to make it explode.

Like I said, i'm no expert but this documentary is pretty good.

reply to post by liejunkie01


The various flare accounts are discussed in detail in the NTSA report, which, IIRC, I linked to earlier in this thread - I think I discussed them - have a look for my posts in this thread for it.

Bilk22
reply to post by NickDC202

 

I remember the video of what looked like a rocket. It was later explained that it was actually fuel being ejected and then ignited from the aircraft. Never bought that explanation.

Passenger aircraft routinely dump fuel at certain stages towards the end of a flight...

Originally posted by AMD2
what makes me wonder about this is:
the center-wing tank showed clear evidence about an explosion from inside out, and all pieces surroundig it where recovered and did not show any missile impact.
i strongly believe Fox has been fooled on this !

I did not use all your post because it would be a long quote. But, at least one person has said that the fuel tank portion 'came in' with the walls upright and not bent in, that wing parts were removed from the hangar by the FBI without a paper record, and that is supposed to be part of the enquiry record. That the DIA talked about a video that they thought was of a missile, and that it was not included in the enquiry.
There is a lot of things written out there, and it will take time to get it together to make up your own mind, much like 9/11 really, with things that 'never happened before' It's all very contentious stuff.

reply to post by TheSpanishArcher


R.I.P. Ronnie James..............the great voice died too soon.

televisionv
[
I did not use all your post because it would be a long quote. But, at least one person has said that the fuel tank portion 'came in' with the walls upright and not bent in,

It exploded outwards might be why!!

the wing box the centre tank is in is the strongest part of the aircraft - and once structural integrity with the surrounding airframe is lost it is likely to remain largely intact.

NTSB accident report - it's a large PDF

that wing parts were removed from the hangar by the FBI without a paper record, and that is supposed to be part of the enquiry record.

Why? the enquiry is into what caused the crash. the FBI's shoddy treatment of some of het evidential wreckage was well known at the time and criticized by various agencies, including eth union ofr aircraft mechanics - International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

That the DIA talked about a video that they thought was of a missile, and that it was not included in the enquiry.

they did a lot of work on het missile hypothesis, including videoing missiles being fired and comparing what it actually looked like against the reports that had been received.

did you bother doing any actual research on this??

NickDC202
Most people weren't watching MSNBC at that time, frankly it had just debuted that week and with Brian Williams' Rand McNally map as the graphics, I'd assume that most watching when the news broke switched over to CNN (or local NY news). The TWA 800 video exclusive was what they hoped would put the network on the map (MSNBC won the bidding war and I hear the price was outrageous), but the FBI had other ideas.

The FBI was also said to be confiscating public and private video on 9/11. More than a few cameras were rolling that day, for example traffic cams, so I don't doubt that we have clear footage of the pentagon strike in some locked vault somewhere.

iBallinU

Bilk22
reply to post by NickDC202

 

I remember the video of what looked like a rocket. It was later explained that it was actually fuel being ejected and then ignited from the aircraft. Never bought that explanation.

Passenger aircraft routinely dump fuel at certain stages towards the end of a flight...

That would make sense except in the case of TWA Flight 800 it had just taken off.

reply to post by iBallinU


They only dump fuel if there is an emergency. Not all aircraft can dump fuel either. Flights are planned so that they're under landing weight when they arrive at their destination so there is no reason to dump fuel.

iBallinU
Passenger aircraft routinely dump fuel at certain stages towards the end of a flight...

No, they don't.

Who told you that?

Fuel dumps are not routine. They are only performed in certain cases like emergencies or when aircraft are diverted to an airport different from the original destination which causes them to have excessive surplus fuel. For example, a lot of fuel got dumped on 9/11 because when air traffic was shut down, a lot of planes got diverted to different airports, but that was hardly a routine event.

I must apologize upfront if this was already discussed, but I found this find to be very interesting and just wanted to share...

en.wikipedia.org...

The above link is related to Iran Air Flight 655. On 3 July 1988, at the end of the Iran–Iraq War, the aircraft serving the flight, an Airbus A300 B2-203, was shot down over the Strait of Hormuz by SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles fired from the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes. The aircraft, which had been flying in Iranian airspace over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf on its usual flight path, was destroyed. All 290 on board, including 66 children and 16 crew, died.[1] Ranking ninth among the deadliest disasters in aviation history, the incident retains the highest death toll of any aviation incident in the Indian Ocean and the highest death toll of any incident involving an Airbus A300 anywhere in the world.

According to the United States Government, the crew incorrectly identified the Iranian Airbus A300 as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter (a plane made in the United States and operated at that time by only two forces worldwide, the United States Navy and the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force). The Vincennes was signaling warnings on a military channel which the civilian plane could not technically receive. Hence, the airliner was unable to respond to several requests for it to change course and could not identify itself clearly as civilian. [4] The Iranian government maintains that Vincennes negligently shot down the civilian aircraft. The event generated a great deal of controversy and criticism of the United States. Some analysts have blamed U.S. military commanders and the captain of Vincennes for reckless and aggressive behavior in a tense and dangerous environment.[5][6]

My point here is that accidents do happen. And this situation wasn't resolved until guess? YOU GOT IT 1996!!! In which the US didn't admit wrong doing (guess how that went over?) but the United States and Iran reached "an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, differences, claims, counterclaims" relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice.[7] As part of the settlement, the United States agreed to pay US$61.8 million, an average of $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. However, the United States has never admitted responsibility, nor apologized to Iran.

BTW...I did watch the documentary over the weekend which lead me to this awesome thread!!!

SEEnISbelievn
I must apologize upfront if this was already discussed, but I found this find to be very interesting and just wanted to share...

en.wikipedia.org...

When you quote material from a source like Wikipedia, please use the cloud icon visible when you compose a post that says "insert content from external source" when you mouse-over the icon, then we can tell the difference between what you wrote and what you sourced.

In comparing that case to TWA800, the delay you mention was in reaching the settlement. I don't think there was any delay in a US admission that they fired the missiles, though there were questions about the procedures that were followed in doing so.