Ive looked alot into TWA 800, and I agree, it was a missile. Hundreds of witnesses saw and triangulated a streak of light from the same area.

Why this coverup? Who brought it down, our govornment or terrorists? That remains the question in my mind, not what brought it down, but WHO.......

And why. We can pretty much deduce the who and why for 9/11, but Flight 8oo is still an oddity.

I thought the missile theory had been explained by the break up of the aircraft and the nose section falling away ?

Not really, Silk.

That was the offical line, and one that just about everyone but the officals shot out.

For starters, the streak of WHITE light was seen going from surface to air. Though they are not experts, 400 plus witnesses can indeed determine up from down, and color. The streak was seen first, then the fireball and explosion. Then the crap fell from the sky. Chronology.

White streak seen by 400 plus witnesses going upward. Then, BOOM! huge fireball, then trailing pieces pf plane fall from the sky. The FBI dismissing witnesses and telling them what they saw, shows obviously they didnt care about the truth.

Exploding fuel tanks? Dont think so.

In past cases where there was confusion and no conclusion as to what caused an airplane accident, witness testimony was always then used and accepted. Like, lighting strikes leave no visible evidence, yet planes that were struck by lioghtning and crash or exploded, eyewitness accounts on the ground of lightning and seeing lightning hit the plane closed those cases.

One or two witnesses, maybe, but not hundreds over a relatively good sized geographic area.

Yep, general concensus is someone goofed, and blew it out of the sky...and they knew there'd be hell to pay, so it was easier to cover it up... Once the story broke more, it became even more necessary to continue along those lines... I don't think it was an intentional shoot down...but an accident that was squelched...

Thanks for the post Skadi - I dont know a lot about this case just what channel 4 told me.

As for lightening i was on a 777 hit by lightening on the way back from Dallas a couple of years ago - and the pilot remarked this was a faily common thing - confirmed with s0ome senior pilots I know socially - so I would agrre that its not really something that brings a plane down.

I do know however that the NTSB inquiry pointed to the wires in the mid fuel tank - which is i believe ofton not filled and thus full of fumes - as the cause of the explosion and the ATC tapes shown as indicating the missile (alleged) were explained as the nose fuselarge breaking away.

For the eye witnesses I cant comment - didnt know there were hundreds - the programme i saw only interviewd about 4 who were involved in the Flight800 case.

I do howewver agree that it was strange that no one at the relatives disclosue meeting were allowed to take notes of the Flight Recorder messages.

On the whole I would actually ere on the side of Boeing trying to sure up the reputation of its aircraft and safety record rather than some military messup. If you look outside the time line of Flight 800 and at the deals Boeing was trying to beat Airbus Industries on than the conspiracy might be revealed. Actually for Boeing a Blue on Blue or accident would have ben much better news.

I definitely agree with Skadi. She's done more extensive research on it than I have and it coincides with what I have read.
I think it was probably an errant missile fired from a US Navy ship in the area. Covering it up would have been par for the course in the Klinton administration. If it had got out that that occurred on his watch the outcry would have been deafening.
Although I have much respect for the Navy, mistakes are made. It's unfortunate but true. If, in fact, one of their missiles brought it down, it would have been far better to just come clean. Cover-ups in themselves are often far worse than the actual situation being covered up.
My gut sez it was not a terrorist event. But, it is a possibility. Skadi, can you share your thinking on the who and why?

I find it humorous that people are willing to believe in a vast conspiracy based solely upon what some people thought they "saw".

If you have never seen a major airline break up in flight, at night, from a distance, due to an internal explosion, how can you be sure you interpreted what you saw correctly?

The Navy missile theory is crap. If you had any idea how many protocols have to be followed, circuits must be engaged, safeties must be released, and people be involved in order for a US Navy warship to fire an AAW missile at a live target you would be snickering about this theory like I am.

Face reality. Shyte sometimes break or fails to operate as designed. Sometimes with horrible consequences. Face reality.

Originally posted by Pyros
I find it humorous that people are willing to believe in a vast conspiracy based solely upon what some people thought they "saw".

If you have never seen a major airline break up in flight, at night, from a distance, due to an internal explosion, how can you be sure you interpreted what you saw correctly?

It's pretty obvious you'd rather not read things that don't back up your thinking, so why don't you share with us proof of your 'solid' conclusion. Don't worry, tho, I won't be waiting for it.

The Navy missile theory is crap. If you had any idea how many protocols have to be followed, circuits must be engaged, safeties must be released, and people be involved in order for a US Navy warship to fire an AAW missile at a live target you would be snickering about this theory like I am.

Face reality. Shyte sometimes break or fails to operate as designed. Sometimes with horrible consequences. Face reality.

Well Pyros, I find it humorous that people, like yourself, are unwilling to do research and entertain theories on aspects and arguments you disagree with. I could apply the same phrase "face reality" to you, as you are obviously stuck on your own misinformed ideas.
Why don't you show us some difinitive proof supporting your view. And please, don't throw the government's conclusion at us. We all know that's been proven to be horseshyte.

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

Whilst i have great respect for the posters - East coast for one regarding the tragedy - i do actually have to ask a question - just what did a plane crash have to do with the president in power at that time - unless one of his rivals was on the plane. There was no political ground to be gained by Clinton in covering this up as far as i can see - if im wrong please feel free to present some evidence.

Whilst i like conspiracys and am interested in the outcomes of mysteries i could give a monkeys about just who is in the White House at any time.

Originally posted by Silk
Whilst i have great respect for the posters - East coast for one regarding the tragedy - i do actually have to ask a question - just what did a plane crash have to do with the president in power at that time - unless one of his rivals was on the plane. There was no political ground to be gained by Clinton in covering this up as far as i can see - if im wrong please feel free to present some evidence.

Whilst i like conspiracys and am interested in the outcomes of mysteries i could give a monkeys about just who is in the White House at any time.

Silk,
He got slammed from every conceivable angle. They operated in constant damage control mode. If it was a mistaken Naval missile, the administration may have felt it would cause too much damage politically. Remember, the Republicans wanted his head on a platter.

but who would really lose ? - Boeing and the navy - I doubt your government had a great deal to do with this - its not a cover up in my book - howevere i would still like to know what happened to Egypt Air and the flight that went down with the Cockpit voice recorder saying "God is Great" - now there is a worthwile story- and one never spoken about.

For me I trust the CAA reports - I have too many friends who use them as theor life line about safety - and i am sorry the idea of a missile vs a 747 is rubbish. That plane was designed to fly on one engine - i know having played with the simulator at West Drayton.

Originally posted by Silk
but who would really lose ? - Boeing and the navy - I doubt your government had a great deal to do with this - its not a cover up in my book - howevere i would still like to know what happened to Egypt Air and the flight that went down with the Cockpit voice recorder saying "God is Great" - now there is a worthwile story- and one never spoken about.

For me I trust the CAA reports - I have too many friends who use them as theor life line about safety - and i am sorry the idea of a missile vs a 747 is rubbish. That plane was designed to fly on one engine - i know having played with the simulator at West Drayton.

If it was an errant missile, I'm not saying there was any conspiracy. Mistakes do happen. I know this because I was in Aviation during my stint in the Army.
It could have been a shoulder-fired missile, too. The most important thing to look at in that regard is WHO WAS ON THAT AIRPLANE?
I will maintain, however; the government's version of it is BU#.

- and i am sorry the idea of a missile vs a 747 is rubbish. That plane was designed to fly on one engine - i know having played with the simulator at West Drayton.

That's what I call rubbish. How many anti Aircraft missiles were you hit by in that simulator?
Ever heard of jet fuel? It has this nasty habit of exploding when hit by an explosive warhead.

I could tell you some stories, East Coast, being in a missile unit, about how many enar accidents and the like we had. Gods Bless the US Chair force, for all the times we locked on them in fire exercises, scaring the # out of the F-15 fighters whose alarms at an enemy lock were going off in Friendly German non combat airspace, all the times we damn near and sometimes succeded in creaming them during the Gulf war, and the Iraq war, even despite all this, they still took it in stride and even teased us about it! Laid back civilians in unirform they may be, but they got the best damn humor and tolerance I have ever seen!

Anyway thats my point. An accident during live training exercises, which really should not have been conducted in an area that is the busiest airspace in the country, There are alot better places to conduct such exercises, they were only a few miles from the airport. Whose bright idea this was I have not a clue.

But, remeber the time, this was July 97 when this happened, remeber, Clinton was already starting to get in hotwater over Monica and the inquiries and the like...the last thing he wanted to get out of course, was this, because it was a military exercise. the only reason i can think they would be conducting this # in such an area is cost: with as much as he stripped the military budgets, thsi was probably the cheapest place to play with missiles, since they didnt have enough money, or something similar. Who knows?

But exploding fueltanks my ass. The evidence at hand, from the wreckage to the eyewitness accounts, to the FBI agents caught hammering [pieces of the aircraft to from a different shape, points to something more than a Boeing # up.

Im thinking of starting another thread on the American airlines flight 587 disaster, something that, strangely enough, has not been mentioend at all, yet was VERY suspicious..........

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I could tell you some stories, East Coast, being in a missile unit, about how many enar accidents and the like we had. Gods Bless the US Chair force, for all the times we locked on them in fire exercises, scaring the # out of the F-15 fighters whose alarms at an enemy lock were going off in Friendly German non combat airspace, all the times we damn near and sometimes succeded in creaming them during the Gulf war, and the Iraq war, even despite all this, they still took it in stride and even teased us about it! Laid back civilians in unirform they may be, but they got the best damn humor and tolerance I have ever seen!

Anyway thats my point. An accident during live training exercises, which really should not have been conducted in an area that is the busiest airspace in the country, There are alot better places to conduct such exercises, they were only a few miles from the airport. Whose bright idea this was I have not a clue.

But, remeber the time, this was July 97 when this happened, remeber, Clinton was already starting to get in hotwater over Monica and the inquiries and the like...the last thing he wanted to get out of course, was this, because it was a military exercise. the only reason i can think they would be conducting this # in such an area is cost: with as much as he stripped the military budgets, thsi was probably the cheapest place to play with missiles, since they didnt have enough money, or something similar. Who knows?

But exploding fueltanks my ass. The evidence at hand, from the wreckage to the eyewitness accounts, to the FBI agents caught hammering [pieces of the aircraft to from a different shape, points to something more than a Boeing # up.

Im thinking of starting another thread on the American airlines flight 587 disaster, something that, strangely enough, has not been mentioend at all, yet was VERY suspicious..........

Yes, altho I despised their lazy azzes whilste during PT (Physical torture) - they only had to walk a certain distance in a certain amount of time. I say God Bless the Chairforce, just the same. They are the best of the best.

Here's a possible scenario.. Someone important and dangerous to Clinton/Bush I cabal (better known as the Octopus) aboard TWA 800, as I've read in the past.. send the Navy out to do some live fire Xercises in the area (only the highest levels knowing the real deal/target). Set it up to LOOK like an accident and then deny it - knowing folks on the inside (like us) would argue the cover-up of an accident - rather than think it was planned. Take out the enemy aboard. A cover-up within a cover-up?

As far as Klinton goes.. this is VERY IMORTANT - They went after Klinton's sexual capades instead of hammering him on the much more damaging aspects of his chicanery, like selling secrets to China, The Red Chinese buying his '96 election, the MENA cover-up (again, the Octopus - way bigger than Klinton), many, many deaths linked to his administration in the beltway and Arkansas - like the murders of Secretary Ron Brown and WH Counsel Vince Foster and last, but definitely not least, Whitewater. They had to take him down with the sexual stuff because anything deeper would have implicated Republicans, (daddy Bush) as well.
TREASON, TREASON, TREASON!

Skadi - give us the dirt on the flight you mentioned. I havn't heard about any of that.