It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


did an electrical short really do in TWA 800?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:17 PM
The accepted version of events claims that a spark set off the center fuel tank and that was the explosion that took the airliner down. But was it?
I am going to gather together some supporting links, and then I'll fill you in on some alternative versions of what happened, based on eyewitness accounts and recovered plane wreckage lab analysis. Anyone who would like to give more details, don't wait for me.

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:51 PM
Pierre Salinger is 'totally sure' a missile was the cause, here is a cnn piece on it.

and a site by the associated retired aviation professionals, states the fuel tank explosion explanation is not credible.

some eyewitness accounts, stating they saw an object ascending towards the plane. 'and I didn't see a theory.' states one witness

some cover up allegations

I will post more links later. For now I will give my two bits. I remember the day it happened and heard witnesses describe the ascending object. After that day, the witness accounts pretty much vanished. But it is clear in my memory what I heard that day. So, I kept an eye on the story for a while and read some pretty damning accusations. The Pierre Salinger view is pretty well-researched from what I recall. The story I really want to find is about the residue found on a seat cushion that a man spirited away and had a friend test at a lab. His friend said it was rocket fuel. The evidence was seized, and he was told later it was just the adhesive that holds the cushions to the frame. So, he did some sleuthing of his own and his research showed that the adhesive they used was a completely different colour than the residue he had taken to be analyzed. It is hard to imagine that a lab would mistake rocket fuel for glue, and also, why was it a totally different colour? Salinger knows the navy activity in the area that day, and it doesn't look very good for them. If I recall, he says they fired a missile at a drone, and it found a bigger target.... not good.
edit: the last link has the seat cushion story. It is very suspicious behaviour that the authorities were up to in this article, they don't look very interested in finding out the truth, but more like they are interested in declaring the truth.

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:57 PM
I dont have many details gathered, but i did watch an in depth study into the flight on the discovery channel? I cant remember exactly. They explained what supposedly happened but the explanation given was kinda out there. Somewhat believeable but altogether it seemed false. If i remember correctly they blamed it on faulty wiring because the wiring was insulated and repaird improperly.

"The government of the United States, despite the embarrassment of having been caught in court rigging lab tests and lying in its reports, still officially attributes the disaster to a spark in the center fuel tank, while government spokespeople insist that the witnesses who saw a missile hit the jumbo jet are all drunks. "

Here is a good site with alot of info.

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:00 AM
Plus, the accusation that the navy was doing missile exercises that day, right there is a heck of a coincidence. Did the drunken eyewitnesses have access that day to the navy's agenda?

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:22 AM
Understanding that there are some serious rules of routing harnesses around fuel lines and fuel cells, and that these rules are standard and are taken extremely seriously, I don't have to look at the prints or follow behind those who built the plance to know that they were not violated.

While I might not know what did take the plane down, I am very confident of what did NOT take it down.

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:40 AM
The associated retired aviation professionals seem to find the official cause not credible. You echo the sentiments of a lot of people who have the relevent experience to be able to speak on the subject with credibility.
So, why such a lame cover story? That sounds like they were begging to be found out. Couldn't they come up with a 'plausible' sequence of events.
It looks like the statement you make is an informed one, and is also very well-supported. The official cause, on the other hand, starts to look as bad as your view looks good.

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 10:49 AM
I think the reason why they picked this particular cover story is that most people have never worked from a print, never went to any aviation-related school and never really thought much about it.

Even those who work in aviation are prone to think, "What the Heck were the engineers thinking about!?!" and just might not give it a second thought.

Simply stated, they had to come up with something that just might put the majority of the masses back to sleep.

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:06 AM
I guess they must have been just scrambling for a quick solution. The event was most likely not on purpose, at least I haven't read that. So, it wouldn't have been expected, and prepared for, like the Oswald bio. etc.
that is actually kind of circumstantial evidence that it was an accident. If they had planned it, and had more time, they likely would have had a better story prepared.

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:07 AM
I'm not certain, but I think it may have been a terrorist attack that was covered up by the Clinton admin because they didn't want to deal with it.

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:16 AM
Dj, you never fail to entertain me. I see you working.

I'll play along with your theory and add that maybe the Clinton administration didn't want to deal with it because it was not yettime to deal with the terrorist situation.
Which leads me to believe even more that the whole war on terror is scripted.


[edit on 20-1-2006 by Dr Love]

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:07 PM

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I'm not certain, but I think it may have been a terrorist attack that was covered up by the Clinton admin because they didn't want to deal with it.

okay, I'll bite. What led you to that one, seriously.

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 06:53 PM
The plot is thickening..... yes ??

I think we shot it down and the government did not wont to payout for all the lawsuits! Sounds good to me.

posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 08:17 PM
"More than 150 'credible' witnesses --
including several scientists -- have told
the FBI and military experts they saw
a missile destroy TWA Flight 800."
The New York Post - 9/22/96

Here are two excerpts from the site.

Weeks later, the FBI refused to share its laboratory results on the residue, citing evidence in a criminal investigation, prompting Stacey to remove samples of this residue, giving them to James Sanders (author/journalist) who in turn had the residue tested at West Coast Analytical Services (WCAS) in Sante Fe Springs, CA. The results[1] of this test showed high concentrations of elements used in missile fuel[2] and pyrotechnics.

Furthermore, FBI chemist Steve Burmeister, has stated that the red residue was not consistent with the 3M adhesive tested at NASA.

posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 11:31 PM
FWIW, an electrical short brought down SwissAir 111.

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 12:05 AM
I don't doubt you about Swissair 111, and I'd like your view on the information in the links I have posted here regarding this crash.
There is a great deal of evidence that in this case something else was the cause.

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 07:59 AM
This image of TWA 800 reconstructed shows a blast area directly infront of the centre fuel tank. This may have been caused by missile interception.


Edit to include link to larger picture:

[edit on 23-1-2006 by breezo]

[edit on 23-1-2006 by breezo]

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:00 PM
Dreezo................ that is a "outward blast" Flight 800 came down in pisces if I remember right. Missiles go for the hot spots on planes. unless it was a radar type interceptor missile. I still say it was a great mistake! The cover up is to help keep the people of the boat from getting heat and the lawsuits that would have been filed.
Would YOU forgive those that shot down YOUR LOVED ONES my mistake?
I would be pissed.........but I THINK I might be able to get over it. I think just looking into the guys on that boat and how they must feel. I would not live with myself if I was part of a lie and killed all those on that flight.
Not to go off post to much......... But one of the times the government had a changes to make some look like they did it was back in the Olympic games when they had a security guard in custody thinking he places a bomb at the games. Later the FBI just came up front and just said it was not him!

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 04:19 PM
Salinger said he spoke with the father of a sailor who said his son told him, "Dad, we shot it down."

That is a pretty bold statement for Salinger to make. If he was just making it up, he would appear to like to make powerful enemies...

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 04:35 PM
On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that an electrical fire caused or combined with a fuel leak to spark an explosion.

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 04:44 PM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that an electrical fire caused or combined with a fuel leak to spark an explosion.

Not if you dismiss 150 eyewitness accounts and all the evidence suggesting otherwise. It is not inconceivable disgruntled customers knowledgeable in the area of directed electromagnetic pulse weapon technology did it out of spite either. But what is most probable is what the aim of this thread is attempting to find out.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in