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.


TWA 800 shot down? YES. With a missile? Maybe not.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:36 AM
Many have speculated that the Government(or terrorists) shot down flight 800 with a missile and that there was a cover up involved, yet there was no conclusive evidence to show a missile had caused the explosion. Well this study provides an alternative to the missile theory that would explain the lack of evidence for a missile.

This in depth study ties what's been going on at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Montauk State Park, and the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant ("decommissioned"), to the explosion of that flight. An interesting picture is painted here, albeit a disturbing one if it's true.

Do we have this capability? And who is this Steven J Smith guy?

Click on each of the red squares on the map for an in depth look. Don't miss the one at the eastern tip of Montauk at Camp Hero.

Map of Eastern Long Island.

Edit: I should say here, for those who might be too lazy to read the study, that some sort of weaponized particle beam is suggested to have been used to shoot down the plane.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by PhotonEffect]

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:23 AM
reply to post by PhotonEffect

What would be the motivation for shooting down the aeroplane? I have read a lot about possible missile interception but not really ever seen a convicing motive to go along with the means and the opportunity...

Not looking to pick a fight at all, just asking the more expert to throw in a motive to make the meal complete.

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by DogHead

I couldn't comment on the motive really. And I'm definitely no expert on any of this. But I've always been curious about this particular incident. I never felt that we got the whole (or even the right) story.

Here's an excerpt from the study by Steven J Smith:

I believe that TWA flight 800 was the victim of a particle beam weapon attack, launched from the Brookhaven national laboratory in order to test system effectiveness against air born targets. This would not be the first time an agency of the American government has used unsuspecting citizens as experimental test subjects. One need look no farther than the Tuskegee syphilis study, or the 1950s nuclear bomb tests on army personnel to discover how little regard the American government has for the lives of it's citizens.

Taken from here.

After reading thru the analysis of each facility and the role each could've played in this makes it a possibility in my mind. But again I'm no expert in this field.

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 06:23 PM
What do you think about the other theory involving a particle beam, namely that it was a scheduled test of beam-missile interception and that the TWA 800 flight was either directed to the wrong patch of sky OR it was misidentified OR it was friendly fired by either the beam or the missile from the secret test?

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 06:29 PM
Whats interesting is that a Swiss Air MD-11 tranversed the area and crashed at some point during its flight as well. The Egypt Air flight that may have been a suicide but it also went through the same sector.

As far as a particle beam its way too far fetched IMHO. For starters its a known transit space for LCA crossing the atlantic.

Even if you were inclined to shoot down an airliner it makes far more sence to do it over the vast Pacific than in direct sight from land and in crowded airways.

Also would a particle beam leave a detectable trace like atmospheric interference from ionization etc?

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 06:34 PM
I just happen to live in the area that you describe, and I was a few miles away from the blast when it happened.

There is nothing esoteric happening at Brookhaven National Lab (I know for a fact) apart from the exciting RHIC research program and a few others. The Shoreham plant is indeed shut down (swam next to it in the Sound many times). Been to Montauk many times and it's an abandoned radar facility. So all your leads are duds, imho.

There is, however, a Naval Weapons Center. That's a different story altogether.

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 06:36 PM

Originally posted by FredT
Also would a particle beam leave a detectable trace like atmospheric interference from ionization etc?

No, it wouldn't.

If anything, I don't believe it was intentional.
Whatever it was.

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 10:05 PM
reply to post by DogHead

I wasn't aware of the other particle beam theory, but I suppose any of those scenarios could be possible. The study here has transcripts from the in flight voice recorder and it seems that the pilots were instructed to make an altitude adjustment just before the explosion occurred. Was this intentional? It's anyones guess, but I would lean towards no.

But could expand on the other theory? And what's your take on it?

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 10:25 PM

Originally posted by FredT
Whats interesting is that a Swiss Air MD-11 tranversed the area and crashed at some point during its flight as well. The Egypt Air flight that may have been a suicide but it also went through the same sector.

This is a very interesting connection. That Egypt Air crash was another one that left me scratching my head. Suicidal pilot? Suspicious imo.

As far as a particle beam its way too far fetched IMHO. For starters its a known transit space for LCA crossing the atlantic.

Sounds far fetched, but particle beam weapons have been tested and this technology does exist. What about the electrical particle beam which disrupts the electrical circuits in its target? The 'official' cause of the explosion was some sort of electrical failure in the gas tank...


Regarding the explosion:

The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system."[1]


[edit on 23-1-2008 by PhotonEffect]

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:10 PM
I can't do a calculation right away as I'm tired, and probably won't have enough time, but I can't imagine a particle beam work on such target. It's just a lot of exposure, to cause sparks and/or heat release. You either have to fry it for a while (which would mean that the beam would be visible due to Cherenkov radiation, from far away, or you could pulse it but I haven't heard of technology to deliver such huge pulse (and I've roughly followed the accelerator industry for a while). My vote is for EMP.

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 12:02 AM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
...but I can't imagine a particle beam work on such target. It's just a lot of exposure, to cause sparks and/or heat release. You either have to fry it for a while (which would mean that the beam would be visible due to Cherenkov radiation, from far away, or you could pulse it but I haven't heard of technology to deliver such huge pulse.

What about this? This is from the study:

Particle beam overview:
The following are direct quotes from a public relations document called "RHIC by the Numbers", published by the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL).

Quote 1:
RHIC's beam travels at 99.995 percent the speed of light (186,000 miles per second, or more than 300,000,000 meters per second).

Quote 2:
RHIC's beam is not continuous - it's made up of 57 separate "bunches," each containing billions of ions.

Quote 3:
RHIC ions are so small that, even at nearly the speed of light, the force of their impact is about the same as the impact of two mosquitos colliding.

From the BNL website, we discover that gold (Au) atoms are used for the particle beam.

[emphasis mine]

Based on this, he calculated the effective mass of 2 billion gold atoms traveling @ 99.995% of light speed or 299,777,468 meters per second in a vacuum, and determined that the amount of energy produced from the 57 "bunches" or packets of particles (that RHIC uses to store) would be equivalent to "nearly 3 times the energy of a 3500 pound automobile crashing into a wall at 60 miles per hour!" and "all of this energy concentrated into 57 packages, each smaller than the period at the end of this sentence, AND traveling at nearly the speed of light."

Source from study.

After reading that it sounds like a concentrated particle beam could burn thru the bottom end of a fuselage rather quickly...

My vote is for EMP.


There was a military plane in the immediate vicinity of TWA800 went it went down..

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 12:55 AM
Let's grab some TWA-800 stuff in one place:

Whistleblower witnesses:

Capt. Terrell Stacey

A senior manager at TWA in 1996, Stacey had flown the 747 that would become TWA Flight 800 from Paris to New York the night before it exploded. In fact, he was in charge of all TWA 747 pilot activity within the airline. So it was logical that he would be among the first TWA employees assigned to the National Transportation Safety Board investigation.

Elizabeth Sanders

Elizabeth Sanders had come to know Stacey through her years as a flight attendant and trainer for TWA. She thought of him as "a straight arrow, go-by-the-rules kind of guy" and respected him for it. Flight 800 would bind their fates in ways neither could have anticipated.

Source:Worldnet Daily

Fifty-three TWA crew members were killed in the explosion, and Sanders had trained several of them. Sanders, Stacey and the other TWA employees found themselves at one memorial service after another. The feeling among the TWA family then – as now – was that a missile had brought down the plane. As the official investigation sputtered, the frustration among them grew.

In the recent Phoenix UFO sighting wave a hired gun debunker on Larry King called airline pilots non-qualified observers of aerial phenomena. That is rubbish in my opinion, airline pilots, many of them ex-air force, are good observers by training and nature. Even if they weren't, they would still be at least normal observers so it is a red herring and a false statement IMO.

Stacey revealed for the first time the existence of a reddish-orange trail across the cabin interior of the plane in the same area of the passenger cabin, rows 17-19. The residue was on the foam-rubber seat-cushion backing attached to the metal frame. He claimed the FBI had taken several samples in late August, but refused to share the test results and ignored requests by his NTSB team for the same. In September 1996, the residue had become a hot topic among the investigators.

What Really Happened

Almost at once, eyewitnesses were being interviewed on radio and TV who reported that something strange had preceded the explosion of the 747. Witnesses, many on the ground, reported seeing a bright object "streaking" towards the 747. The object in question turned in midair as it closed on the jumbo jet. Witnesses reported horizontal travel, as well as vertical. The broad geographical range covered by the eyewitnesses eliminates foreground/background confusion. To be seen as being near the 747 from so many different directions, the bright object had to actually be in the immediate vicinity of the 747.

Common themes:

missile witnesses

odd behaviour of the Navy

explosives residue on the wreckage

strange markings on some wreckage showing the track of SOMETHING through the inside of the plane.

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 08:42 AM
reply to post by DogHead

Thanks Doghead,

I tend to agree that something very fishy was going on here, and that the 'official' story doesn't add up. All these witnesses that said they saw something streaking towards the craft. Hallucination? Hmmm. I remember the CIA's recreation of what happened that we were all supposed to take as the official story. It showed the main fuselage rising just after the cock pit broke off; and this was what witnesses must've interpreted as the streak racing toward the craft... I ain't that stupid.

But where is the evidence of a missile?

And what if there's some truth to the official report, that there had been an electrical short circuit below that tank which may have sparked the explosion.. Is it possible then that an electron particle beam caused it?

An electron particle beam weapon works by disrupting electric circuits and electronic devices in its targets. If any living animals or persons were to be caught by the electric discharge of an electron beam weapon, they would most likely be electrocuted. An electron beam weapon can also damage or melt its target by the electrical resistance heating of the target


I'm open to the idea considering the facilities that exist in and around where TWA800 went down...

[edit on 24-1-2008 by PhotonEffect]

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:52 AM
Great post Photon. Starred and flagged.

The topic of TWA Flight 800 is one that is very important to me.

In fact, searching for info on this tragic event is what lead me to ATS.

Shortly after July 17, 1996 I was deeply saddend to learn of the passing of my lifelong friend Dan Gabor, a passenger on this flight.

"Danny" was a great guy. A friend who could truly be counted on through thick and thin. A young man with an inner quality that you just don't see everyday.

It is very clear that there are many mysteries surrounding this event, and it is my ultimate wish that one day we will receive the disclosure that all the innocent victims aboard this flight deserve.

A strange coincedence that many people do not know about my friend and this flight, TWA Flight "800", was that Danny was an All-American track and field star at the University of Arkansas. His goal was to reach the Olympics, and he was well on his way. Any of his coaches or his competitors will tell you that Danny had the desire, determination, and talent to achieve his dream, winning the gold medal.

Danny's event was the 800m.

RIP Daniel Gabor 1969-1996

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:14 AM
I remember this crash when I was a youngster... I never understood WHY there was so many Dateline specials about the crash attempting to explain why it crashed etc.

It seemed to me even at a young age that 'they' were trying to cram their explanation for the crash down the viewers throat over and over. Why?

It wasn't until recently that I even heard a theory of the TWA 800 being shot down. At this point, having delved deeply enough into government ops that lead to the death of civillians (I'm going to avoid saying 9/11 here...) It really wouldn't surprise me.

Whatever the motive, governments have done far more horrific things than shoot down an airplane. It seems to me the way they pushed for an official story without allowing people to consider the oddities of the crash was suspect enough.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 06:49 AM
I remember when I was laying it on thick at a military inquest, I went for the jugular and opened with

"Who speaks for the dead?"


We find that voice.

So for Danny and everyone else who died that day, let's find the freaking answers. We're supposed to be smart and analytical people right?

Let's go!

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by Kaiser Sohse

Sorry to hear about your friend Kaiser. This was a terrible tragedy to say the least.

I live in NYC and would frequent the eastern end of LI quite often. I remember I was in Hampton Bays that July on my way to the beach when we drove passed the Coast Guard station where they were bringing in the debris from the crash.

A big truck of pieces was pulling out I remember seeing a huge chunk of fuselage from the inside with windows and seats still attached. I remember thinking that there were live human beings sitting in those seats and that image and thought has never escaped me...

I'd like to know what really happened. The official explanation has holes in it.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:42 AM
These are the facts as I believe them to be in the case of TWA Flight 800.

1. A secret missile was being tested by the Navy near civilian airspace using civilian airliners as simulated targets.

2. The testing area was "hot", a detail of which TWA 800 was not advised.

3. An accident occurred during the launch of the missile whereby the Navy lost control of the guidance system and the missile began tracking the TWA Boeing 747.

4. The son of a Navy Officer who was on the missile ship called his father and told him "Dad, we accidentally shot it down".

5. Over 150 witnesses saw some sort of flare rising from the water to the aircraft. None of these witnesses was allowed to testify at the NTSB hearing.

6. The crew of Pakstani Internatinal Airlines called ATC right after the crash and told them they had seen a missile rise up from the ocean and hit TWA 800.

7. A radar blip was seen by a Long Island FAA radar technician who reported seeing "conflicting radar tracks that indicated a missile," immediately preceding the moments before flight 800 disappeared

8. A copy of this radar tape in the possession of a former TWA pilot was confiscated by the government and has not been introduced as evidence.

9. A swatch from a cabin seat was proved conclusively to have on it missile fuel.

James Sanders, a retired police officer and Investigative reporter to whom the swatch had been given and who had the tests performed by an independent agency was sent to jail by the government.

10. Navy SEAL divers were sent the scene within hours and were the only persons who had access to the wreckage for the first 3 days after the crash.

The SEALS were able to remove and hide any evidence that would implicate a Navy missile in the tragedy.

11. To assure their complicity in the coverup TWA and Boeing who were in a position to know exactly what happened were each given an offer they couldn't refuse by the government.

Boeing was allowed to merge with McDonnell-Douglas, the government having withdrawn their anti-trust objections.

TWA was guaranteed over 350 million dollars in private loans to help cover the costs of the accident.

There exists incontrovertible evidence with the FAA radar tapes, the missile residue on the cabin seats, the over 130 eye witness reports, the Navy SEAL team actions and the fact that President Clinton was facing re-election little more than 3 months away and could ill afford a highly publicized government screw up for which we might be ultimately blamed, that the downing of TWA flight 800 was, in fact, an accidental shootdown by the US Navy.

It was the U.S. Navy's 5th accidental airliner shootdown, the first being a Flying Tiger Line Lockheed Constellation full of soldiers headed for Viet Nam in 1963. While over Guam, a Navy fighter pilot had been using the Constellation for target practice when he accidentally shot it down.

Flying Tiger Line, Bob Prescott (President) and Fred Benninger (vice-President) were rewarded for their help in the cover-up by being awarded the major share of the Viet Nam conflict cargo contracts. FTL also started another airline called Flying Tiger Air Services, Inc. which flew military cargo and passengers between Japan and Viet Nam.

The center tank boost pump story was pure government fraud.

Under no conditions of any sort would or could a center fuel tank pump explode or set of an explosion. I am a pilot and a mechanic and I flew Boeing airplanes for 30 years. That is totally and completely false. The vapour-arc-appropriate mix of air oxygen occurring in the tank, any tank of any Boeing airplane is sheer fiction. At the time that fairy tale came out I was flying Lockheed L-1011 cargo places into Wichita to pick up 777 engine cowlings for Boeing Seattle. You should have heard those Boeing mechanics ridicule and rip to shreds that arcing theory.

Boeing agreed to admit that the fuel tank pump started the conflagration on the 747-100 series only, in return for being allowed to merge with McDonnell Douglas. Boeing agreed to the 747-100 because many of them were out of service and it would not affect their current customers of any series after the 100.

TWA agreed not pursue a criminal action against the Navy in return for a $350 million dollar private, low interest loan.

The passengers were left with FBI Director Kalstroms empty promise “We’ll find the culprit’s.”

And the CIA's fraudlent video?

First of all in the climb speed at 300 knots the forces that are acting on the airplane are the wings which are giving it lift but attempting to pitch it down.

The tail is essentially an upside down wing. Its giving lift but is imparting that lift downward to counteract the downward pitch that the wing is giving to the fuselage.

This is why the strongest area on a fuselage is on the top, called the 'crown', because that is where all the load is.

Everything is now balanced. If you remove 25% of the forward fuselage you have instantly changed the dynamics. The tail, which has been forcing the nose up to counteract the pitch down forces of lift, has nothing to counterbalance it and will instantly do a back flip.

There will be no lazily gliding up as depicted in the video. It is a farce that could not happen in real life. There would be no upward travel. There would only be instantaneous destruction.

The lights that people saw rising up in the air was the missile that was fired from the U.S.Navy boat that launched it.

I believe that video was initially made by the CIA and should be used as a joke in aerodynamic classes.

Oh, and in cased you missed it, American Airlines Airbus A-300 Flight 587 in Belle Harbor right after 911 aa 587
was downed by a bomb in the aft cargo compartment not that silly tail coming off story.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:03 PM
Damn, John. People are very often skeptical of your posts for some reason, but you never fail to provide MUCH food for thought. Sometimes it's like watching puzzle pieces rearranged and put back in the right order, than you realize that earlier the pieces had been crumpled, folded, and crammed into place.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:22 PM
reply to post by johnlear

Thanks John for your reply.

I had always suspected a missile too, just because of all the eyewitness accounts about seeing a streak of light moving toward the craft at a high rate of speed. 150 eyewitnesses can't be wrong IMO...

But the thing that got me was lack of evidence. Now if you believe conspiracy here (like I do) then one could easily write off the lack of evidence for a missile as "missing" or destroyed.

You did mention that residue was found on a seat, and I remember hearing something about that also. BUt what kind of residue was it? Do we know?

John what are your thoughts about the possibility that's presented in the above study of a directed-energy weapon of some kind (like a particle beam) being the cause of the explosion? It's a doozy of a theory but after reading it something about it seems entirely plausible.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by PhotonEffect]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in