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: 22
165
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CowboyWilly
reply to post by Dragoon01
 


From what research I did on the internet. They were designed different in regards to the tanks and filled with JP4 fuel which is alot more volitale than what fuel was in flight 800. They no longer use JP4 in KC 135;s and since have not had a problem. I am no a expert and not sure if this is true but It is what I read on internet, I am sure someone here on the forum has more info than me, And the is a poster from some other post named Boomer that served on a refueling plane that may be able to lend some info to this post.



I think you are correct here. TWA 800 would have been using Jet A as well which is a lower volitility fuel than JP.




posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
We all, well in the airline biz that it was a missle from whale island, the navy test range for missles.

We all new that there was no way for the fuel issue to have happen as they said it would. The airlines spent millions addressing a new saftey feature that did Not exist.

Truth willl come out, but sad to say this is the not going to get the attention it needs or warrents.
To much time has passed and peopel have more important things going on, like watching ET, DWS....



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by RobinB022
 


But if you read the statements they gave, only a very small handful of people (like one or two) saw anything that could even be remotely interpreted as a launch signature, and just about everyone said they saw the streak as it was approaching the aircraft. There was nothing in between, not even from pilots in the area.


This is not true. We just reviewed video where an expert witness pilot saw the ground level contrail. We have 100+ witnesses who saw a variety of stages of the streak. And the streak only lasted for a couple seconds.

A MANPAD is made to conceal the engaging force. You do not want to launch and notify everyone in your LOA of your exact position. The cone is light shielded. The missile sits eight inches from your face. The ejecta sprays down your arm from 12 inches away in older variants (probably used here). This is NOT a high signature launch, for a variety of reasons.

This missile conceptually would have only spent 22 total seconds in flight at MOST. In most variants, we are talking 12 seconds, with 40% of that time having no propellant burn.

So the witnesses only had 7 seconds to see anything, if they were at a distance. Still, over 100 people DID see something.

The things you describe here are EXACTLY what should have been seen. This was not an SM-2 or even a Sidewinder by any stretch of the imagination.




edit on 20-6-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragoon01
 


At least one of the two that exploded in midair was on a routine non-refueling mission transiting from one base to another. The Air Force had changed fuel pump manufacturers, to a cheaper pump, and it scavenged the fuel that it was supposed to have used to lubricate the pump, allowing metal on metal contact, which led to the explosion.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
This is covered up like 587. I created a few threads on this.

Look at 1:01 forward on the video...that is not a tail fin falling off. That is an explosion. People saw it. Many people saw it. Pushed aside and made to be udder failure. The good old go to....



800 can be explained as an accident but it was not.

Can someone provide a link to the CCTV that shows the streak also....the thread has gotten so long I cannot find it...



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 

But the US did pay out a chunk of money for the victims.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


AA587 was a failure of the vertical fin. Once the fin failed, there was nothing left to keep the aircraft stable. It went into a maneuver that stressed the engine struts in a way they weren't meant to be stressed, and they failed. The "explosions" were the engine struts failing and the engines coming off the aircraft. I used to have pictures from the NTSB recovering the vertical fin from the water far from where the aircraft crashed, and showing a close up of where the fin attached to the fuselage. There was a nice clean fracture of both of the mountings, nothing like what you would expect to see if something had caused it to fail, like an explosive (to say nothing of how hard it would have been to place anything in that position).

If you start the video from before the 1:01 mark, it is already in a downward trajectory prior to the explosion.
edit on 6/20/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
The fuel tank theory is destroyed in this video by experts. They found a splatter pattern across the top of the fuel tank that tested positive for Nitrates, consistent with explosives. The kicker, is that the pattern is consistent across fractures, and multiple pieces of the fuel tank ON THE OUTSIDE. A fuel tank explosion, could not, I repeat, COULD NOT cause this, because the forces would come from the INSIDE of the tank. when an investigator that held the position of the original story was confronted in the video, he changed his tune. This is big, because it proves that something happened before the tank ripped apart of an explosive nature. There needs to be another investigation, because with this evidence, the original cause is not possible. It is really that simple. Argue about launch signatures, etc all you want. The fuel tank did not cause this accident. Find another cause.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Dragoon01
 


At least one of the two that exploded in midair was on a routine non-refueling mission transiting from one base to another. The Air Force had changed fuel pump manufacturers, to a cheaper pump, and it scavenged the fuel that it was supposed to have used to lubricate the pump, allowing metal on metal contact, which led to the explosion.




So nothing like TWA 800 at all. Good so we have ruled out all of these examples of military aircraft in that none of them simply exploded from an electrical short inside the fuel tank.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Does anyone remember if any extremist group claimed responsibility? I was leaning toward a terrorist act with the govt. covering it up. I thought maybe to keep air travel industry from collapsing. It would still seem that you would have heard someone claiming responsibility. The other option would be the USN, It just seems it would be hard to keep a boat load of sailors quiet about killing a bunch of innocent people.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CowboyWilly
Does anyone remember if any extremist group claimed responsibility? I was leaning toward a terrorist act with the govt. covering it up. I thought maybe to keep air travel industry from collapsing. It would still seem that you would have heard someone claiming responsibility. The other option would be the USN, It just seems it would be hard to keep a boat load of sailors quiet about killing a bunch of innocent people.


There were threats, and one before it happened.

Terrorist Warnings before and after Flight 800


In the absence of explanations, theories abounded. One focused on a fax sent Wednesday to an Arabic language newspaper in Beirut warning of an attack. State Department and CIA officials confirmed they had received copies of the fax Thursday. The message said "tomorrow morning we will strike the Americans in a way they do not expect and it will be very surprising to them," according to one official.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragoon01
 


That rules out probably two of them (two KC-135s were confirmed as being faulty fuel pumps). Others are still similar to TWA 800, or were never confirmed to be because of these fuel pumps, and were just listed as center wing fuel tank explosions, cause unknown.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OneisOne
 


Haven't USA paid for Iran Air Flight 655 in february 1996 for the 290 victims? Maybe there's a link here...

articles.chicagotribune.com...



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by myrddin99
 


Yes they did. They agreed to pay them $131.8M.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I'm trying to see if that info in here is a real one, seems a fax was sent to London on July 17 1996:

"The mujahideen will give their harshest reply to the threats of the foolish U.S. President [Bill Clinton was again threatening Iraq over its noncompliance with UNSCOM]. Everybody will be surprised by the magnitude of the reply, the date and time of which will be determined by the mujahideen. The invaders must be prepared to leave [the Arabian peninsula], either dead or alive. Their time is at the morning-dawn. Is not the morning-dawn near?"

archive.frontpagemag.com...

This, in conjunction with Iraq liberation day on july 17 seems to be lot of coincidence...



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Zaphod have you watched the video yet? You've been consistently posting since the thread started and you still haven't addressed the actual evidence presented, I'd like to know your opinion based on the video.


edit on 20-6-2013 by drock905 because: (no reason given)


twa 800

here is the video

password epix123
edit on 20-6-2013 by drock905 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


The password didn't work.

I'm kind of on the fence about it. I still think that it was a CWT explosion, but I am trying to be open to it being a missile, even though it would have taken the lucky missile shot from hell. It's just a matter of seeing some really good evidence for a missile, that meets up to a high standard of evidence.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by drock905
 


The password didn't work.

I'm kind of on the fence about it. I still think that it was a CWT explosion, but I am trying to be open to it being a missile, even though it would have taken the lucky missile shot from hell. It's just a matter of seeing some really good evidence for a missile, that meets up to a high standard of evidence.


they may have changed the password with all the attention the doc has gotten from the MSM in the last 24 hours



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


Just my luck. I was searching everywhere trying to watch this video and now the password has changed!

Did anyone save it?



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I just checked again since I was able to access it last night, and yes the password seems to have been changed.


I wish it was YT so I would have been able to d/l it.

In a nutshell the video highlights 2-3 major airline investigators (as well as lots of eyewitness testimony) that explains how evidence was tampered with by the FBI and how their assessments for the first time in their careers wasn't requested, just the review (which they claim was tampered with by FBI). The amount of remorse these few people displayed was quite obvious to me.




top topics



 
165
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join