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

Originally posted by marhaba
reply to post by NickDC202

 

Thank you. I only watched the video once so i can't recall the names.
There indeed looks like a charade was going on during the investigation and I can only surmise same as the others that the reason for it to be covered up is it was an accident or a friendly fire and the government don't want the tech behind it to be exposed to the public.

Or perhaps if it was a military missile launch, the government was able to contain those involved in the military exercises without involving other investigative agencies, begin the investigation with the FBI leading it (the FBI may have been told "the Atlanta Olympics begin in 48 hours, we can't have a public panic resulting in participating nations pulling out of the Games; investigate everything before you start saying terrorism and scaring people") and when they decided to put their eggs in the mechanical failure basket, they'd lose all credibility with the public if they then concluded it was terrorism and the feds haven't done anything to track down those responsible because they were too busy chasing the mechanical failure fantasy.

reply to post by NickDC202


I forgot it was indeed near the opening of the olympic games, now it makes sense why the apparent cover up.

Originally posted by NickDC202
WhySoBlinded, I apologize for my ignorance, but who is this Meier you're referring to?

They changed the focum icons, but before they did, the HOAX! forum had Billy Meier's picture at the top as king hoaxer. That was a transcript of him interviewing an alien, I think.

When we've got senior NTSB investigators like Hank Hughes giving us details, I don't think we really need hoaxed transcripts of interviews with aliens.

Originally posted by NickDC202
The documentary does not go into depth to prove that it was or was not a missile from a military vessel or a shoulder filed missile or any of the various other potential causes; it simply proves that the flight was destroyed by an outside explosive device, not a center fuel tank explosion caused by wiring.

It does posit a three missile theory, which I don't understand, because none of the witnesses saw three missiles that I know of, did they?

So that seems kind of far fetched. But aside from that, it did raise a lot of questions that made it look like something was being covered up, whatever it was.

Originally posted by NickDC202

Originally posted by Salander
I was watching network TV with my children when this happened, and wondered why on earth normal TV programming was interrupted so that the White House could announce an airliner crash? Is this new policy? Would the POTUS also interrupt normal programming to announce a train wreck or bus accident?

This was a coverup from Day One. My guess is a friendly fire type accident involving the US Navy.

FBI being the lead agency on an airliner accident? That is highly irregular. NTSB is the lead agency on airliner accidents.

Coverup from the very start.

Remember the TWA 800 incident occurred 48 hours before the opening ceremonies of the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta; with any such incident I imagine the President would have to make an address to the nation. (Heck, the last few Presidents have made addresses with every school shooting as long as it occurs at a white, middle class school)...

That is true, but I don't find it particularly meaningful. An eastbound jet to Paris does not seem a good target for a terrorist intent upon harming the US.

The final result of the investigation--shorting wires--was an absurd conclusion, and everybody knows it. Also, the way the FAA handled the Airworthiness Directive was also highly irregular.

Originally posted by NickDC202

Originally posted by WhySoBlinded
i know many of you guys and galls think meier is a hoaxer ! but he must be a damn good one then if all the contact reports he published way before anybody else are confirmed years later every time !
I can make a list of well over a 1000 articles.
Here is the report out of 1996 and published 1997 !

as you can see by reading the article, the real details have yet to be discovered or revealed…except by Meier !

WhySoBlinded, I apologize for my ignorance, but who is this Meier you're referring to?

I did read the information you linked to; I should note that the documentary serves to prove that TWA Flight 800 was hit by an outside explosive object which resulted in the explosion of the aircraft. The documentary also presents evidence which disproves that a spark due to faulty wiring in the center fuel tank even occurred. The documentary does not go into depth to prove that it was or was not a missile from a military vessel or a shoulder filed missile or any of the various other potential causes; it simply proves that the flight was destroyed by an outside explosive device, not a center fuel tank explosion caused by wiring.

Do you know coast to coast am ?

maybe its beter to watch that interview to get a better idea

Coast to Coast AM

Originally posted by Salander
Also, the way the FAA handled the Airworthiness Directive was also highly irregular.

Can you elaborate more on that?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Salander
Also, the way the FAA handled the Airworthiness Directive was also highly irregular.

Can you elaborate more on that?

Happy to. The FAA responded to the findings with an AD after some period of time--years. Further, as best I can recall, the AD was not required to be implemented until another year or two after it came out. There were 230 people killed in that accident.

Compare that action-reaction to the recent case of the Boeing 787. For an airworthiness condition caused by the battery problem, the entire fleet was grounded until the problem was fixed. Nobody died and nobody was injured by the battery problem, but the whole fleet was grounded immediately after the problem was discovered.

So 230 people die and the FAA drags its feet and doesn't even ground the fleet. To me, that suggests knowledge within the FAA that the entire incident was politically charged and not really, actually, a real problem with the fleet. After all, for a type in service for decades, such an accident had never happened before.

reply to post by Salander


The FAA almost always dragged their feet after accidents, with a few exceptions. One being the American Airlines crash in Chicago when the engine separated on take off. After the cargo door opened on United 811, they shortened a previous AD timeframe from 18 months to 30 days. The previous incident (Pan Am 125 out of London had a partially opened cargo door in March 1987) had happened almost 2 years prior to United 811, and they still hadn't complied with the AD, and it hadn't been enforced. After 811, the new AD was going to allow the airlines to make the modifications to the cargo door as the aircraft went through checks, which in some cases could have been a year or more after 811.

Prior to the 787 about the only time the FAA grounded a fleet was again, the DC-10 after the American crash. They almost never ground fleets, even if a problem is found with the type to have caused a crash. The 787 is the first time I've seen the agency be proactive, and no react after several hundred people have died.

reply to post by Salander

Thanks for explaining more. I think I found a copy of the AD:

www.faa.gov...

I agree it seems like they didn't seem to think there was a major problem with 747 center fuel tanks, given the lax timelines and the trivial nature of the suggested actions.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The fact that airlines were also starting to retire the -100 series also played into it. They were the oldest of the group flying and the ones that were probably most prone to wiring problems due to age.

Prior to 800, the FAA and various companies had been working on an inerting system for years, but hadn't found one that was both cheap, lightweight, and effective every time. It wasn't until 2003 that they developed a system that would operate from the aircraft's own engines to reduce oxygen in the tank, instead of having to install a foaming system or something along those lines.

reply to post by Salander


The flight that was scheduled to be in that flight path but due to a delay at the gate was not was an EL AL Flight; TWA 800 took it's place in the cue and was where the EL AL flight should have been if it had departed on time.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It does posit a three missile theory, which I don't understand, because none of the witnesses saw three missiles that I know of, did they?

So that seems kind of far fetched. But aside from that, it did raise a lot of questions that made it look like something was being covered up, whatever it was.

This was the one aspect of the documentary that didn't sit well with me; I thought it was an area that merits more of a presentation because I had never heard the three missile theory before and I found myself yearning for a more thorough explanation.

Originally posted by NickDC202
reply to post by Salander

 

The flight that was scheduled to be in that flight path but due to a delay at the gate was not was an EL AL Flight; TWA 800 took it's place in the cue and was where the EL AL flight should have been if it had departed on time.

Arbitrageur

Yes, my only point about the AD was that it was such a casual affair, it seemed, with something like 8 years for the AD to be complied with, from the time of the accident. If FAA had been genuinely worried about it, as they were with the battery issue, they would have been much more aggressive, the retirement of the 100 series notwithstanding.

Thank you Nick, for that information about the El Al flight. I had never heard of that before, but given world politics, I'm not surprised.

Perhaps the passenger manifests from that flight should be examined as well.

Wait a second, this all sounds like a conspiracy to me and we are not allowed to talk about planes being shoot down or anything like that on ATS anymore, even if that is what we come here for so what gives.

Look if it was not in the official story then it never happen right so "Denny Ignorance" as they say because some here think they know better than others and letting threads like this one stand will only course arguments and we don't want that do we now

Originally posted by Salander
If FAA had been genuinely worried about it, as they were with the battery issue, they would have been much more aggressive, the retirement of the 100 series notwithstanding.

I think you're right. They may not have grounded the fleet so I think Zaphod58 makes a valid point about that, but I would have expected to see more aggressive timelines for the stated actions if they were worried about it.

Originally posted by NickDC202
This was the one aspect of the documentary that didn't sit well with me; I thought it was an area that merits more of a presentation because I had never heard the three missile theory before and I found myself yearning for a more thorough explanation.

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad I'm not the only one who found that somewhat odd.

My take is this: He complained because they ignored witness testimony about an apparent missile.

But then he came up with a theory to try to explain the damage, which significantly included the left wing losing its lift surface causing the plane to bank to the left. (which by the way, does the official story have any explanation for this banking to the left? He says it doesn't). You may recall he also ran a field experiment with a wing section to simulate the damage found.

When there was additional damage, it seems like he felt like he needed to add more missiles to explain it, but this is where he did what he complained about...not really matching witness reports (since they didn't see three missiles). I think you're right, he needed to explain it more than he did.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I wouldn't. Look at the Valujet 592 crash. The NTSB recommended fire safety devices be installed in the cargo hold of passenger aircraft, which the FAA decided not to adopt. In October of that year they announced they would make smoke detectors mandatory in cargo holds, and on the one year anniversary of the crash they still hadn't issued a directive. The FAA does everything possible to protect the airlines, unless it's a situation where they can't.

They finally issued the rule change in 2001. It only took five years.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Thanks for the reply. I'm glad I'm not the only one who found that somewhat odd.

My take is this: He complained because they ignored witness testimony about an apparent missile.

But then he came up with a theory to try to explain the damage, which significantly included the left wing losing its lift surface causing the plane to bank to the left. (which by the way, does the official story have any explanation for this banking to the left? He says it doesn't). You may recall he also ran a field experiment with a wing section to simulate the damage found.

When there was additional damage, it seems like he felt like he needed to add more missiles to explain it, but this is where he did what he complained about...not really matching witness reports (since they didn't see three missiles). I think you're right, he needed to explain it more than he did.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I almost hope that the three missile hypothesis gets cut as the "Rough Cut" is given a final edit. The presentation achieved the most important outcome: Through a combination of new and previously ignored evidence, science, factual testimony from high-level Flight 800 investigators and eyewitnesses demonstrate that the conclusions of the original final report are not only inaccurate, but almost an impossibility. That was the most important thing they could have done and they achieved it; the minute allocated to the three missile hypothesis is completely unnecessary to solidify their case.

Originally posted by NickDC202

Originally posted by kelbtalfenek
reply to post by orangutang

 

I've been wondering about this myself. Where is the passenger manifest of this flight?

I watched the first hour or so of that documentary and hoped to come back to it, but it appears that it was taken off line. (anybody rip a copy?)

Good thread here.

Here is the passenger list for TWA 800:
From the Washington Post

Thanks, I was actually asking about the passenger manifest for the El Al flight...methinks that if this wasn't an accident, that flight was the real target.

One thing in favor of the theory that the El Al may have been an intended target, is the fact that no terrorist organization or subversive faction ever took credit for the deed. Even slimebag terrorist groups would not own up to making such a hideous mistake, if that indeed happened. So, to me, the only 2 possibilities are this scenario, and a Military exercise gone wrong. Will we ever know.....

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Amps are a thousand times greater than milliamps and therefore much more capable of producing the heat needed to catch insulation on fire. Not only that but the power of one amp is a million times as great as a milliamp going into the same resistance, so these are factors to consider regarding the similarity.

Also, it wasn't a fuel tank in Apollo 13, it was an oxygen tank.

Too much current through damaged wires (Apollo) or wires that were not designed for high current (TWA).
Both had combustible gasses inside. Both went boom.
To me it's the same bird with different color feathers.

When this whole thing plays itself out I hope they hang the producer out to dry.

I need to read the NTSB investigation more thoroughly before being sure but I would bet that the cabling doesn't run through the fuel tank. Any short of the extent described would immediately trip a breaker but assuming it didn't, and somehow was introduced to the sender circuit, it would physically have to practically blow the sender apart to introduce an ignition event into the tank.

I imagine with an event such as that the cabling to the sender would be the weak link and, acting as a fuse wire, disintegrate before the sender itself thereby removing the means of ignition. That's without mentioning the equipotential bonding (earthing) that exists on planes to avoid potential ignition events. Unless the NTSB built a full mock up and simulated the same fault and found the same outcome I would say that the circumstances are improbable if not impossible.