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

Originally posted by NickDC202
So am I the only one currently watching the phenomenal EPIX documentary on TWA 800 that the news in the OP originated? It is outstanding and I'm only an hour into it.

I thought the article said it wouldn't be out for a month? ???

And this:

Associated Press on (07/19/96) reported " Radar detected a blip merging with the jet shortly before the explosion, something that could indicate a missile hit."

At the time, there was a great number of reasons not to believe the official story.

reply to post by MRuss


The EPIX documentary features not only the eyewitnesses who describe something similar to what you shared but much, much more.

Originally posted by FuZe7

Originally posted by NickDC202
So am I the only one currently watching the phenomenal EPIX documentary on TWA 800 that the news in the OP originated? It is outstanding and I'm only an hour into it.

I thought the article said it wouldn't be out for a month? ???

There is a hidden gem (by hidden gem I mean if one reads the press release the site and password to view the documentary is provided to the reader) in the EPIX press release I link to in this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by NickDC202

Originally posted by FuZe7

Originally posted by NickDC202
So am I the only one currently watching the phenomenal EPIX documentary on TWA 800 that the news in the OP originated? It is outstanding and I'm only an hour into it.

I thought the article said it wouldn't be out for a month? ???

There is a hidden gem (by hidden gem I mean if one reads the press release the site and password to view the documentary is provided to the reader) in the EPIX press release I link to in this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 6/18/2013 by NickDC202 because: (no reason given)

THANK YOU!

What's the deal with this? Do Docu people do generally do this? Never heard of a network putting something like this out early?

reply to post by Zaphod58

There are pictures, as well as descriptions of the damage to the engines on that page.

Very small and grainy from a long ways off, and can't tell how many engines there are, since there are four separate photos that could be all of the same engine from different angles as far as I can tell.
I was looking at a photo on another site that did not look like any of those shown on the site you linked to.
The article was the experience of one person who was somehow involved with the investigation.

here is a graph from the video at one hour, that shows the simulation by the NTSB for the plane going up after the explosion, then the black line the video makers put in that shows the actual trajectory based on radar. According to this the plane never got higher than 14,000 ft.

Watching video.

Thanks to whoever found this

reply to post by MRuss


You're more than welcome.
Enjoy it.

reply to post by jmdewey60


That's just one, but there are pictures of them out there. Not one of the people involved mentioned any odd damage, except pulling a Budweiser can out of one of them (obviously from post impact damage).

What's amazing is that an Airbus A300 (much smaller than a 747), a C-5, and a C-17 were all hit by MANPADS, and all three returned and landed safely, with fairly minimal damage to the aircraft. All were returned to service within a few months at the most (the A300 was the most severely damaged). But suddenly, a 747 gets hit by one, and immediately explodes into 5 pieces and crashes in flames? Say what? Does that make any sense to anyone?

Originally posted by FuZe7

THANK YOU!

What's the deal with this? Do Docu people do generally do this? Never heard of a network putting something like this out early?

It's from the EPIX press/media relations site.
Literally the second thing that came up in the results when I searched EPIX TWA 800.
I was thrilled when I found it by reading the press release.

reply to post by Zaphod58


All the theories I've seen are claiming 2 missiles. One where the front of the wing joins the fuselage and one towards the tail section. Which if true I could see the plane breaking apart as the first most likely damaged the fuel tank(s) and the second would have ignited the fuel vapors as well as causing more damage to the fuselage.

The one claim of missiles I found the most credible was for a Navy test where they accidentally locked onto flight 800 instead of their target drone as it skirted the edge of their restricted airspace where the testing was underway.

This guy remembers it... sorry if it was posted already

Just finished watching it and it makes an amazing case for the missle theory but Be warned there is some very very graphic footage of the victims.

A quick synopsis:

- it documents how the FBI/CIA basically tied the hands of NTSB investigators from the start.
- lied and ignored evidence
- tampered with the wreckage
- completly ignored and twisted eyewitness statements.
- lied in front of congressional hearings
- there were zero consitancy with the victims injuries
- lied about the plane being used for bomb training practice


It presents as its smoking gun radar data from the incident obtained through FOIA debris leaving the spot where 800 initially lost electrical power traveling at +4 Mach which the whistleblowers say is clear evidence of a high explosion not a low explosion from the center fuel tank.

this is seriously a must watch

reply to post by EViLKoNCEPTz


The problem there is that a ship launched missile has a HUGE signature on launch. There were other aircraft that would have seen it launch, that never reported it.

SM-3 launch:


Why didn't anyone report seeing a launch? Even if it was a test of a sub launched missile, there would still be a significant launch signature when the motor fires off. It should have been able to be seen for miles, even farther from the air.

A radar launched missile might lock onto the center fuselage, but the chances of locking onto the tail section are much slimmer, because the radar return from the tail is smaller than from the fuselage.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What's amazing is that an Airbus A300 (much smaller than a 747), a C-5, and a C-17 were all hit by MANPADS, and all three returned and landed safely, with fairly minimal damage to the aircraft. All were returned to service within a few months at the most (the A300 was the most severely damaged). But suddenly, a 747 gets hit by one, and immediately explodes into 5 pieces and crashes in flames? Say what? Does that make any sense to anyone?

I watched the documentary and didn't really see or hear much I hadn't heard before, I just heard it from some retired investigators I hadn't heard directly from before, but it was the same stuff I heard before.

I don't buy the MANPADS or missile theory, (Seems like it was probably a little out of range for MANPADS to begin with), but regarding your question, even the official explanation said the 747 had an explosive mixture in the fuel tank, right? Are you saying it would be impossible for the MANPADS to ignite that explosive mixture? In that theory I think it would still have to be the center fuel tank that ripped the aircraft apart.

reply to post by Zaphod58


There are 200+ witnesses that report seeing a launch that night. I highly recommend watching the doc, it's not a low budget YouTube style piece. It's a high budget well researched work and it makes some excellent points. If it true or not I don't know but it presents some compelling evidence.

reply to post by drock905


I know. I followed the investigation in great detail. There were 200+ witnesses that saw SOMETHING that night, that they THOUGHT was a launch. There wasn't any conclusive proof brought forward that it was a missile however.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Not impossible, but if you look at the three aircraft I mentioned, all three were hit in the wing/engine area, nowhere near the center fuselage, which is where the missile would have to hit to cause the breakup the way 800 came apart. And even if it had hit the center fuselage, it would have had to go through the airconditioning pacs that were under the fuel tank, that would have absorbed some of the damage. It isn't impossible that a MANPADS or a missile brought it down, just very very unlikely.

The fuel that was in the tank (50 gallons) was heated past the potential point of ignition before the plane even took off. The finding after 800 (they flew an Evergreen 747 that was wired up with more sensors than some space launches), was that the temperature rose higher, the lower amount of fuel was in the tank, and the higher the altitude went.

reply to post by Zaphod58


In the doc they have 2 witnesses whose testimonies were specifically singled out for the CIA animation. These witnesses claim that what they saw and what was portrayed in the animation are completly different, which I found interesting.

One claimed to have contacted the FBI after the video was released and was ignored.

To adress your post above It also claims there were 3 seperate launches, which I have never heard before.

reply to post by drock905


Two witnesses out of over 200 doesn't really change a lot though. At least one of the airborne crews should have seen a missile launch. Even a MANPADS has a signature that should be seen, even a flash out of the corner of the eye should have been seen. But none of the airborne crews saw anything until the streak of light. And the description of the supposed missile flight doesn't match what a shoulder fired missile would do if it was going to hit the center fuselage.

If there were three, then someone should have seen the launch site, or at least ONE of the missiles being launched.