did an electrical short really do in TWA 800?

I believe you Zaphod, and I know nothing about fuel tanks on planes. I do hope that the plane you quoted, the K 135? is not the infamous flying gas tank though, because if so that is an unfair comparison. The plane that I am calling the flying gas tank was known for being dangerous. One of them blew up while searching for 4 or 5 missing WWII era fighters, and in the documentary I watched, it was said to be particularly volatile.
One of our own members has replied earlier on this thread and offered the view that the TWA 800 explosion being due to the official cause was unlikely, and as I said, that view is backed up by many professionals on a website which I have linked at the top of the thread.
Maybe you're right, but I am not convinced to change my view when it is supported by so many who know far more than I. Thanks for the reply anyway.

You're talking about the Martin Flying Boat. It's a WWII era plane, most definately NOT a KC-135.

I wasn't kidding when I said I don't know a lot about planes. I know more about the British K boat submarine fiasco than the K 135. Did you look into any of the other points that have been raised about the TWA crash? Did you hear the initial radio news reports the day it happened? If I hadn't, maybe this thread wouldn't even exist. There may be nothing erroneous about the official story, but even so, there is enough public outcry and concerned inquiry to merit a look, imo. I was surprised it hadn't yet been noted here, a site dedicated to such things.
On a related topic, planes, I just learned that an F 22 Raptor costs over 120 million dollars, which I would rather see spent on the 29 000 kids who starve to death every day.

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]

Yeah, I remember all the things from that day. It happened on my b'day and I was at a bar with friends when we heard about it. The second I heard about it, I said "center wing fuel tank explosion" to myself. Yes there were some odd events around it, but the evidence I saw, and as much as I know about planes, it all fits that the center wing fuel tank went up. There was no point on the plane after they rebuilt it that showed external damage going into the fuselage, like would happen if a missile exploded near it, or hit it.

One thing to remember is that it's entirely possible that the Navy WAS doing a live fire training, or even firing training missiles in the area, but there is no way to tell how close they really are watching from shore. So that streak they saw going up, before the explosion could very well have been a missile fired from a USN ship, but it could have been 10 or even 20 miles PAST TWA 800, and there's no way for anyone on shore to know because there's nothing to give you perspective on how close they are to each other.

[edit on 4/19/2006 by Zaphod58]

www.twa800.com...

You may be right, but this site sure brings up a lot of doubts in my mind.

twa800.com...

How about the explosive residue story? The above page outlines the total destitution of the sanders', who spirited the sample of seat material with suspicious residue on it from the site when disillusioned with the official investigation. The residue allegedly tested was said to be explosive, a compound found in rocket fuel. Of course, this has been explained away by the official investigation as not being evidence of a missile as well.
If your posit is correct and any missiles ascending towards TWA 800 that day were many miles further back, that is still quite a coincidence, no?

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]

There was explosives training done a couple of weeks before using Semtex, and IIRC one small bit was lost somewhere on the plane. Not nearly enough to bring it down, and with no detonator, but enough that it would have left residue on the seats.

Not really. The military has to do training exercises SOMEWHERE, and it's not always feasible to do it hundredes of miles away from where planes fly. They usually block of a section of airspace and reroute.

During the show about it I was watching, they discovered that the flash point of Jet A-1 (the fuel that commercial planes use) is 98 degrees. By the time the planes reach the altitude that TWA 800 blew up at, the temp in the center wing tank was almost 300 degrees. It wouldn't take much to set it off at that point.

I hear you, Zaphod, thanks for the reminder about the semtex explanation, I remember now. On the same topic, when I originally heard the residue story years ago, the writer said that the officials told him that it was not explosive at all, but was only seatcushion glue. He researched that, and found out that the glue and residue were completely different colours. It was much later that I read the semtex explanation. I find it odd that something as dangerous as explosives could be accidentally left behind, not noticed for weeks, and exist in enough quantity that it was found after such a destructive event. The information in the links I have provided is exhaustive, cohesive, and, imo, more credible than the official line. But that's just my take, clearly you and I see it differently. Cheers.

Originally posted by SethJaneRob

Originally posted by Jaryn
I wish you luck finding documentation to prove this, but I was home from work that day and clearly remember watching a report on CNN just after the incident, where a Major or Lieutenant Colonel (based on USAF rank insignia - it was definitely a cluster, but hard to say which color) wearing a flight suit was interviewed and described seeing a contrail and bright light going up towards the aircraft.

I never saw that interview again and have never heard any mention of it since.

You arent alone. I live in the NYC area and I saw something very similar on the local news channel. They were interviewing some sort of military pilot (assuming military because of the clothes he was wearing. He was a pilot nonetheless because the shot they hand showed his helicopter like plane in the backgrnd) and he was mentioning how they were up in the air when the plane exploded doing manuvers but he didnt see anything. I was suprised at this kind of admission and just when I thought that someone else in another uniform yanked the guy from in front of the camera and escorted him away. I'll never forget it because i laughed out loud and told my mom that if something did happen and they were to try to cover it up this guy just blew their chances.

Also remember how they first denied that there were any exercises going on that night then slowly they started to release the number of subs that were in the area and the number kept increasing with time.

To me 800 is a classic coverup

I heard the missile ascending towards the plane eye-witness account that day on the radio, and never again...
If the navy did accidentally do it, my feeling is that it is far better to just come clean. Covering it up is far worse.

Originally posted by Xpand your Mind
I hope you do not mind me asking on this thread, it seemed the only recent active thread re flight 800, can anyone remember ever seeing the video clip that still bothers me after all this time, I have only ever seen this clip aired once, and only once in the UK, footage was taken on that fateful night at a barbeque, time frame was bang on, guests were on the patio with the ocean as a back drop, like a family get together, camera man was filming family members and with this perfect ocean backdrop unintentionally captured what to all intents and purposes can only be described as a missile going right to left and climbing, it must be eight years since this clip was shown, I cannot find any reference to it anywhere, and I mean anywhere , does anyone here remember seeing this ? thankyou

I don't know for sure, but I vaguely recall an image of an object rising from right to left, in a blue sky. I can't swear that it is from this event, but the right to left ascending vector matches your story. It would be great for me if someone somehow found this video footage and released it. If that happened, this story would get new interest, which I think it deserves. It is a provocative subject containing plenty of data that contradicts the official findings. Why it hasn't generated more interest, here of all places, surprised me.