TWA flight 800

Reading the final report on flight 800 will give an idea of how much work went into the report and may give a feel for what kind of problems there are in correcting deficiencies in designs when every possible contingency was not thought of. Like LONG DELAYS on the ground with the air-conditioner running next, or under, a fuel tank with not enough fuel to dissipate the heat. Then why was the internal study of Boeing not found by the FAA and precautions taken, like maintain certain amount of fuel in the Center Wing tank. The study was for the military versions which do sit on the ground a lot for their specific missions.

I think there are a lot of real world issues to be learned by the report. Like the witnesses not being talked to more than once due to POSSIBLE Criminal proceedings. Which in turn started the rampant rumors about witnesses being ignored, spinning up the conspiracy madness.

Final report may help start skeptical ideas based better in reality. I do not see how anyone can really push the ideas of conspiracy and alternate conclusions without a full understanding of the final report.

Final report

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


The missile theory is sound. It did not have to detonate to bring down the aircraft.

From what I understand training exercises like this, near populated areas, use dummy missiles for these type operations. Now once the missile was off course nothing could be done about it.

The center fuel tank showed outward ruptures, most likely on the side opposite the war game thearter.

Once a missile locks on to a heat signature, its pretty much over unless evasive is taken.

The level of involvement the Navy had in recovery was pretty weird, maybe so no one would find the piece that showed the missiles entry point.

I remember when Salinger first came out with the missile theory, thats when it hit me how much time, effort, people, and money was spent on recovery.

Even CNN said Salinger's work was "littered with errors and misinformation". No legitimate attributions, just unnamed sources and unnamed experts. Even the FBI found no RADAR evidence of a missile. NTSB and Pentagon dismissed his work also.

interesting!! ty for the post

I don't beleive the missle theory for the fact that the pilot didn't report any warnings of a missle lock. Even a heat seeking missle will lock on a target before fired to track target. I beleive it was around 04 when the national guard fighter locked on to an airliner off of NJ the cockpit alarms went crazy and the pilot put out a distress call and went into evasive manuvers.
And when the navy shot down the Iranian airliner they reported the mistake right away without attempting a coverup.

Originally posted by ridgeback
I don't beleive the missle theory for the fact that the pilot didn't report any warnings of a missle lock.

Sorry but normal passenger airliners do not have a missile warning device.

The Isrealies just came out with a missile warning device recently for airliners after a DHL flight was hit by a missile.



[edit on 23-4-2010 by REMISNE]

Actually Flight 800 was a crime scene twice.

First it was originally thought by the FBI that the intial explosion was caused by a bomb.

Second witnesses came forward about seeing a missile.

So why do we have so much information on crime scenes like Flight 800 but have hardly anything on the 9/11 crime scenes?

reply to post by REMISNE


Because once it was determined NOT TO BE A CRIME SCENE it was treated as accidental crash scene wherein investigators were TRYING TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE CRASH.

On 9/11 the cause of the crashes was not under investigation. Just the persons who caused it (terrorist).

Originally posted by hooper
On 9/11 the cause of the crashes was not under investigation. Just the persons who caused it (terrorist).

Oh, so since when do they not do a full criminal investigation?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
On 9/11 the cause of the crashes was not under investigation. Just the persons who caused it (terrorist).

Oh, so since when do they not do a full criminal investigation?

They did do a complete investigation. But they don't reinvent the wheel for every investigation. If a coroner determines that the cause of death in a given case was a gunshot to the heart, the coroner does not compile a book about why humans need a functioning heart in order to live.

Originally posted by hooper
They did do a complete investigation.

So why can't anyone show evindence of a complete investigation being done?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
They did do a complete investigation.

So why can't anyone show evindence of a complete investigation being done?

Because

a) You have your very own definition of "complete" that no one else is privvy to and

b) Law enforcement agencies are not in the habit now, or ever have been, of releasing all their investigation records to the general public before a trial.

Also, as you well realize, there was a trial - Mossaoui - and by the looks of all the evidence presented and available for general viewing, it was pretty darn thorough. Not up to your high standards, whatever they may be, but more than sufficient for all other purposes.

Listen - you needn't bother repeating yourself, I know they didn't include the model number from the beverage cart on Flight 93, but other than that glaring mistake it wasn't too shabby.

reply to post by hooper

a) You have your very own definition of "complete" that no one else is privvy to and
b) Law enforcement agencies are not in the habit now, or ever have been, of releasing all their investigation records to the general public before a trial.

There is a definition for a complete investigation, when the investigation has look at all evidence and theories and formulates a hypothesis then checks the hypothesis against this evidence, it must fit.

With flight 800 there was way to many issues with the evidence that supported further investigation, and the adaption of new theories to fit the evidence at hand.

Not forgetting evidence, changing evidence or omitting the evidence to fit a predetermined Answer!

Sounds like 9/11.....

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by hooper

 

a) You have your very own definition of "complete" that no one else is privvy to and
b) Law enforcement agencies are not in the habit now, or ever have been, of releasing all their investigation records to the general public before a trial.

There is a definition for a complete investigation, when the investigation has look at all evidence and theories and formulates a hypothesis then checks the hypothesis against this evidence, it must fit.

With flight 800 there was way to many issues with the evidence that supported further investigation, and the adaption of new theories to fit the evidence at hand.

Not forgetting evidence, changing evidence or omitting the evidence to fit a predetermined Answer!

Sounds like 9/11.....

Then you too have your own definition of complete. That is all. You think they should just open the door to every Tom, Dick and Harry to offer an opnion and then not close the investigation until every possibility that anyone can think of has been thoroughly vetted, affirmed, denied, compiled, researched, recorded, publish and re-published.

In other words, no investigation would ever end as long as there was one more person in the world with one more opinion.

And on and on and on and on......

reply to post by hooper

Then you too have your own definition of complete.

Complete: 1 a : having all necessary parts, elements, or steps

Investigation: 1 a : the act or process of investigating or the condition of being investigated.
2.a searching inquiry for ascertaining facts; detailed or careful examination.


Complete Invesitgation would be all the parts, elements and steps of a search inquiry of the details of a careful examination.

Now to have something complete, means nothing was left out, lets not argue symantecs here you must inclusde all things to be valid in investigation.

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf



I remember the news that night of people on long island stating what they seen in the air that appeared to be a missile hitting the plane and than going down.

Now am i confusing planes or was it TWA 800 that had a small passenger list 20 some people with the majority being Egyptian Military. If it was the same plane as i am thinking there were radio reports the day after in Egypt of them saying this is a great day for Islam and they are martyrs or the like.

Originally posted by hooper
a) You have your very own definition of "complete" that no one else is privvy to and

Sorry but thier is only one definition of a complete criminal ivestigation.

b) Law enforcement agencies are not in the habit now, or ever have been, of releasing all their investigation records to the general public before a trial.

Sorry but thier is infomration that we should have access to and should be able to get through FIOA. If there is nothing to hide we should have access to this information

Also, as you well realize, there was a trial - Mossaoui

Thats right there was some exhibts shown that was probly just enough they needed to find a man quilty but complete official story was not put on trial.

reply to post by theability


Sorry, complete does not mean allthings. There must be an element of rational relevancy. Again, you can have a reasonably complete "investigation" or survey or examination or whatever, applying the word complete does not require one to vet every claim.

Don't forget, complete also means done or finished.

reply to post by REMISNE

Sorry but thier is only one definition of a complete criminal ivestigation.

Yes, it means an investigation that is finished. I know you don't think they are done, but I really don't think your opinion (like mine) really matters.

The indictment of Mossaui implicates him in the "official story", he plead guilty and his defense took no objection to the veracity mountain of material that was to be placed in evidence against him for his participation in the "official story". Sorry, it was tested and passed in an American Court of Law. It is complete.

Where, in your vast knowledge of criminal investigations, has there ever been a case where the investigating agency released their investigation records to the general public without a trial?

reply to post by hooper

Yes, it means an investigation that is finished.

Completed is the word for that hooper!

A complete investigation involves all aspects of the inverstigation.

Seriously you should get a job for rewriting the dictionary!

here so you can see the "accurate definition of completed:

completed:
1 : to bring to an end and especially into a perfected state "complete a painting"

see how is says to 'perfect' the work?

Now complete:
1: having all parts or elements; lacking nothing; whole; entire; full: a complete set of Mark Twain's writings; or a complete investigation!

Symantecs aside the obviosu nature of the FBI in this case shows that the evidence was thrown out, discredited etc etc etc...