It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

TWA Flight 800 investigators break silence in new documentary, claim original conclusion about caus

page: 16
165
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NickDC202
I am so glad to read this! Hopefully the public will know the truth that myself and many other's who lived on eastern Long Island in July 1996 have known since that night...

I wrote this a few months ago but never posted because I haven't had time to tweak it to my full satisfaction, but given this new development I feel it is appropriate to share now:

TWA Flight 800 : How Reality was Scrubbed from History

On July 17, 1996 a plane heading to Paris exploded off the south shore of Long Island; TWA Flight 800 is an event that I'll always vividly remember because I was travelling with family and on the eastern end of Long Island that week.

There are two things about that night I'll never forget and are rarely brought up about TWA 800:

1. The plane scheduled to be following that flight path was an El Al 747 however due to a delay TWA 800 wound up being ahead of the El Al flight in the cue.

2. I was a major news junkie in 1996 and at the time really liked NBC News and was super excited that NBC and Microsoft were partnering on a cable news channel. As a news junkie young teen, July 16, 1996 was a big day for me and I sat in front of a TV watching MSNBC's debut instead of going to the beach. The following night I was watching the News with Brian Williams when the TWA 800 news broke and Brian took a Rand McNally map out to show viewers the geographic location of Long Island (since MSNBC's own graphics department wasn't up to speed).

I was glued to MSNBC all night and will never forget the airing of an amateur video showing what appeared to be a missile soaring up from the ocean and then an explosion in the sky. That explosion was TWA 800.

While many believe that this video was never broadcast, I know when and where I saw it (and can understand why I am one of the few given MSNBC being 24 hours old at the time).

I recently asked my Dad about the debut of MSNBC and TWA 800. In asking, I specifically didn't mention the broadcast of the video, just generally what he recalled. He mentioned: Brian Williams Rand McNally map and the video of the missile impacting TWA 800.

Does anyone else recall viewing the broadcast of the video?

I was on the phone with my Mom last night and asked her about it and she also clearly remembers seeing the video on MSNBC that night and described it in detail to me -- white streak shoots up in the night sky, there is a second where the streak pauses and then a huge explosion in the sky over Long Island. As I told her, I did some Googling on Saturday to find news accounts or message board posts from folks who saw the video and all I could find was articles discussing the bidding war for the video, that NBC/MSNBC won the bid and before it aired the FBI confiscated it. Keep in mind MSNBC being 36 hours old probably had a viewership of a few more people than me and my parents that night so the total potential audience is super small; right?




I would circulate this to MSNBC low level employee's. They could then snowden MSNBC for the footage.




posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


The CIA was ASKED to do the animation for TWA 800. They didn't just suddenly say "Hey, we're going to make this animation up to show what happened." In the case of 990, they weren't asked to make an animation for it, so they didn't.


At the start of FBI's investigation, because of the possibility that international terrorists might have been involved, assistance was requested from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[99] CIA analysts, relying on sound-propagation analysis, were able to conclude that the witnesses could not be describing a missile approaching an intact aircraft, but were seeing a trail of burning fuel coming from the aircraft after the initial explosion.

en.wikipedia.org...


Because the CIA are experts in aircraft accident animation reconstructions right?

I would have thought the FAA or NTSB would be the experts there, go figure.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I took off from JFK about 30 minutes before TWA 800 on that day.I actually taxied out behind them.

If you ever had a feeling of being hunted,you will understand how I felt..
A distinct feeling that something was not right. But nothing that I could put my finger on.

Our dispatcher briefed us on the departure-we usually flew up LI towards Kennebunk-but on that day we were filed differently.(for the pilots reading this the bette transition,ene) I want to say Hartford or Albany but I cannot recall the specific transition we filed-but it was more inland.
When I asked the dispatcher why we were filed more inland,the alert area is hot-
No one wants to fly a heavy airliner over an area with shooting going on.

When the FBI-FAA-CIA joint tv presentation came out,I made sure to watch it live. When the FBI agent doing the talking said-The Alert Areas where not active,I knew the lies had started.
How TWA dispatch filed them to fly into a KNOWN ACTIVE ALERT AREA is beyond me. How the FAA allowed them to penetrate a KNOWN ACTIVE ALERT AREA is beyond me. The concept of this being an accidental shoot down is difficult to believe.

I know the theories abound-accidentally shot down,a bomb for the sniffer dogs that they forgot to remove,terrorists with portable SAMs that could not reach the altitude of TWA800. But they all fail the smell test.

I was airborne a few minutes before her.And after the event we found out about her going down approaching the North Atlantic tracks when we dialed in the air to air freq.That was when my stress level dropped.

Now-I have no way to prove to you what was said to me by the dispatcher all those years ago.And frankly,even if I could I doubt I would.I am not out to prove my story.Nor do ı want to rattle the cages of some big bad 3 letter agencies. But,TWA 800 stinks to high heaven.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackSnake
I took off from JFK about 30 minutes before TWA 800 on that day.I actually taxied out behind them.

If you ever had a feeling of being hunted,you will understand how I felt..
A distinct feeling that something was not right. But nothing that I could put my finger on.

Our dispatcher briefed us on the departure-we usually flew up LI towards Kennebunk-but on that day we were filed differently.(for the pilots reading this the bette transition,ene) I want to say Hartford or Albany but I cannot recall the specific transition we filed-but it was more inland.
When I asked the dispatcher why we were filed more inland,the alert area is hot-
No one wants to fly a heavy airliner over an area with shooting going on.

When the FBI-FAA-CIA joint tv presentation came out,I made sure to watch it live. When the FBI agent doing the talking said-The Alert Areas where not active,I knew the lies had started.
How TWA dispatch filed them to fly into a KNOWN ACTIVE ALERT AREA is beyond me. How the FAA allowed them to penetrate a KNOWN ACTIVE ALERT AREA is beyond me. The concept of this being an accidental shoot down is difficult to believe.

I know the theories abound-accidentally shot down,a bomb for the sniffer dogs that they forgot to remove,terrorists with portable SAMs that could not reach the altitude of TWA800. But they all fail the smell test.

I was airborne a few minutes before her.And after the event we found out about her going down approaching the North Atlantic tracks when we dialed in the air to air freq.That was when my stress level dropped.

Now-I have no way to prove to you what was said to me by the dispatcher all those years ago.And frankly,even if I could I doubt I would.I am not out to prove my story.Nor do ı want to rattle the cages of some big bad 3 letter agencies. But,TWA 800 stinks to high heaven.



So what exactly is your theory?

I'm not sure if you are discrediting the whistleblowers or the 'official story'...



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Helicopter rotor blades are fragile to begin with. Even an armored blade can be damaged by relatively small arms fire.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by GArnold
 


Stop putting words I'm my mouth. You don't have to be lying to be wrong.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Ask the FBI and NTSB, not me. Those agency's are the ones who request assistance if they feel they need it. If you want my guess I'd say the investigating agency's didn't feel they required the CIAs assistance during the investigation. The CIA doesn't become involved in domestic incidents without a direct request from the agency in charge.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Having now watched the documentary, id like to go on record here to say I admire your dedication to debunking this idea that 800 was shot down. Your information is of exceptional quality, your writing impeccable, and your responses are spot on. Someone must be very proud you. However, I don't believe you in the slightest. I think the evidence presented in the doc clearly demonstrates a missile attack, intentional or otherwise, was responsible for bringing down the aircraft, and that several governement agencies covered it up.

Enjoy your day



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
This is the latest from the ongoing story on Fox:




A handful of aviation experts, including a number of investigators who were part of the original probe of TWA Flight 800, have come forward in a new documentary to say evidence points to a missile as the cause of the crash off the coast of Long Island 17 years ago. The New York-to-Paris flight crashed July 17, 1996, just minutes after takeoff from JFK Airport, killing all 230 people aboard. In the weeks that followed, the plane was reassembled in a hangar from parts retrieved from the sea. But the cause of the crash was not identified immediately, and after authorities said the crash was caused by static electricity ignited fuel fumes, many skeptics cast doubt on the theory. Adding to the controversy were multiple eyewitness accounts of a fireball going up from the ground and hitting the plane before it went down, accounts which the FBI dismissed at the time. “It’s obvious that the truth was not allowed to be pursued." - Jim Speer, accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association The half-dozen investigators whose charges will be fleshed out in a documentary set to air July 17 - the anniversary of the crash - say they were never allowed to get at the truth. But they are confident a missile brought down the plane. "We don't know who fired the missile," said Jim Speer, an accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association, one of a half-dozen experts seeking a new review of the probe. "But we have a lot more confidence that it was a missile." The group is comprised of people who worked for the National Transportation Safety Board, TWA and the Airline Pilots Association, all of whom have since retired. All six say that the evidence shows the plane was brought down by a projectile traveling at a high speed. “It all fits like a glove,” said Tom Stalcup, a physicist who is considered one of the foremost independent researchers and participated in the documentary, said during a press conference on Wednesday. “It is what it is and all the evidence is there.” Hank Hughes, a retired senior accident investigator for NTSB, said probers were not allowed to seek answers once the FBI took over the crime scene. "We just want to see the truth come out," Hughes said. "We don't have hidden agendas. The only thing we are looking for is the truth."


The experts are saying missile. Hmmmmmmm



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


I do not have a theory.
But if I did it would be more centered on this being an intentional act,rather than an accidental splash.

I have no idea why they would want to do this. But they DID want it to happen is what makes sense.
The other stories are imho red herrings-from EL Al supposedly being airborne first(and hence the actual target) to secret missile tests gone wrong.

1.They can ID your aircraft,even back in the 90s,and pretty much know what they are serving in Business Class via passive sensors,and all they have to do is look at the transponder squak code for a hard positive ID.
2.Missile tests are better done in areas like Edwards,China Lake etc instead of areas with ALOT of civilian air traffic.If they want to track something they could use a target drone,or Military aircraft.

Again,I do not think this was an accident.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackSnake
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


I do not have a theory.
But if I did it would be more centered on this being an intentional act,rather than an accidental splash.

I have no idea why they would want to do this. But they DID want it to happen is what makes sense.
The other stories are imho red herrings-from EL Al supposedly being airborne first(and hence the actual target) to secret missile tests gone wrong.

1.They can ID your aircraft,even back in the 90s,and pretty much know what they are serving in Business Class via passive sensors,and all they have to do is look at the transponder squak code for a hard positive ID.
2.Missile tests are better done in areas like Edwards,China Lake etc instead of areas with ALOT of civilian air traffic.If they want to track something they could use a target drone,or Military aircraft.

Again,I do not think this was an accident.


Absolutely.

I can't wait until I get home and can watch the documentary on this.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I remember the video that was aired. I saw it ONLY ONCE and never saw it after that again. I saw it with my own eyes just like I saw Building 7 fall in freefall speed.

The explanation sounds really good and believable, but I remember the Video before the explanation was given.

Anyways, this should be interesting how it plays out.

Its all a Big Game anyway.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NickDC202
 


I watched the video. There were some very interesting claims about finding segments of the plane where it was clear the explosion came from outside, not inside. Also allegations of tampering of the tags that identified the locations of where items were found and physical manipulation and of evidence by the FBI. There was a lot of discussion about explosive chemicals being found on the plane, and the FBI's pathetic excuse that it was used in an exercise by bomb-sniffing dogs just prior to the incident.

The takeway from the documentary is that they're requesting the NTSB reopen the investigation. I thought it was engaging and I hope a new investigation is opened. Given today's climate of cover-ups and malfeasance, I won't hold my breath though.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Helicopter rotor blades are fragile to begin with. Even an armored blade can be damaged by relatively small arms fire.
Did you watch the video that is the subject of the thread?
Towards the end, they have an animated graphic of a proposed flight path showing the missile looping up over the plane. Earlier they demonstrated how the top of the left wing was damaged by an explosion.
If this was designed as I suggested, it would have been aiming at the engines below the wing.
The break-up of the fuselage could have been by the fuel tank exploding, but by an externally introduced ignition.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


The Afghan rebels used standard FIM-92 Stingers, as well as whatever Soviet missiles were in country. There are improved warheads, but there aren't any that are as you described. There are some that have delayed impact fusing, kinetic fusing, etc, but none that would cause a 747 to shatter into 5 pieces. No matter how you fuse it, 10 pounds of explosives is not going to cause a large commercial airliner to shatter like that, unless it's a Hollywood movie.

Shoulder fired missiles are designed primarily as infrared missiles. That means they're going to track on heat sources, the larger the more appealing. That means engines are going to be major targets, so the impact would be somewhere out along the wing. The most likely hit point, even if it hit number 2 or 3 engine is the thickest part of the wing, where the spar is the thickest, and the wing is strongest.


I agree that it was not a shoulder launched missile.
But watch what 200 GRAMS of semtex can do

747 pressurized to simulate 30,000 feet.


link if my comp skills are bad

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No matter how you fuse it, 10 pounds of explosives is not going to cause a large commercial airliner to shatter like that, unless it's a Hollywood movie.


I'm not championing the cause of a MANPAD, but this statement is sort of disingenuous. It's not impossible or even unlikely that Vne could be exceeded after an intercept causing structural damage much larger than that of the warhead.

This is also a terrible time in particular for the government to ask me/us to trust them, so there's that too...



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I watched the video, the radar return showing the debris moving at speeds faster than sound are very, very convincing. I agree with the reporter in the documentary, that is the proverbial smoking gun that proves this was not a low velocity(sub sonic speed) fuel tank explosion.

I sincerely hope the NTSB opens a new investigation into this tragedy, the one that was performed back in 1996 is so full of holes, apparent malfeasance (changing of evidence tags and manipulation of parts of the aircraft,etc...), and utter neglect it's just hard to fathom they can ignore this.

Springer...



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackSnake
 


Nice, you've introduced plausible deniability. Whoops! Someone flew into the wrong area at the wrong time, bound to happen sooner or later....

So you know someone is on a plane and you want them dead, and you have enough power to reschedule the takeoffs and send that one plane into dangerous airspace where you "know" its going to get nullified.

Who has that kind of clout? It would probably be a real short list of folks, thats for sure.

This was well before 9-11, so those usual suspects can't apply here.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackSnake
 


The difference is in the location. The semtex was inside the fuselage in the cargo hold. That means the pressure from the blast is initially contained and needs to escape. An external explosion wouldn't do as much damage because the pressure can freely escape into the atmosphere without needing to create a path. Most of the explosive force from an external explosion would be directed away from the aircraft.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
The break-up of the fuselage could have been by the fuel tank exploding, but by an externally introduced ignition.


It would have had to be the fluke shot from hell. The wing tanks are full of fuel, which means making them explode would be almost impossible. So it would have had to somehow go through the wing, and into the CWT, and detonate that. Possible, not likely, but possible, and the most amazing luck you've ever seen.



new topics

top topics



 
165
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join