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: 6
165
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Two is not a lot but the government singled out these guys and then lied about what they reported to fit their explanation. I'm not saying it was def a missle I just found it interesting that they changed eyewitness testimony for the animation.
edit on 18-6-2013 by drock905 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


It is, but ultimately won't change much. The big sticking point with any shootdown theory is both the launch signature, and the impact area. A center wing fuel tank explosion makes perfect sense, and fits better than a shootdown.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


My guess, if the scenario was true which I don't believe it is, would be that the launch ship was beyond site over the horizon off shore.

I just find that theory to be the most plausible for a missile incident. I honestly couldn't see terrorists being able to get 2 direct hits on a moving target at that range with a MANPAD. I could however see an accidental lock from a ship based missile system and a subsequent cover up. Especially knowing there was in fact a missile system test in the general area that night. I think the fuel system failure is the most likely of all scenarios though. The only way a shoot down could have happened without it being a Naval accident would have to be something other than a MANPAD. Either some kind of large rifle or AAA hidden inside a private vessel. The only rifle I know of with that range is the long barrel .700 as it theoretically has a range of several miles given clear line of site. It has a 72" barrel and the cartridge is just shy of 7" with a diameter of 1.5" and has a projectile 2" long with a diameter of .70 inches, just under 3/4". It's the only rifle I know of that would have adequate range to hit anything over 10,000ft altitude. Granted the range is theoretical based on the ballistics of the round, and I'm not sure if they even existed in 1996. They just recently became available to public collector's with a FFL Class 3 and appropriate NFA Tax Stamp. If they existed in 1996 they could have been bought on the black market though.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by EViLKoNCEPTz
 


Even if the ship was over the horizon there should have been a glow, or some sign of the launch. Usually on missile tests they fire single missiles, not in pairs, and almost never in triplicate. That gives them a much better read on the telemetry, and on what changes they need to make, and how well the system really works.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The doc def ignores mention of a launch signature, other then saying they are hard to see on radar. It does claim that debris is seen on radar leaving 800 at +4 Mach though. I know nothing about the radar signatures of high explosive missiles so I don't know if thats possible. It also claims the missiles were proximity style and exploded outside of 800.

Do handheld missile systems have the capability to reach 13,000 ft and also have proximity fuses?



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by drock905
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


There are 200+ witnesses that report seeing a launch that night. I


no there weren't - there were 200+ witnesses who reported seeing a light "streak" - none of them specifically said they saw a launch, but:


The Witness Group noted that documents pertaining to 38 witnesses described a streak of light ascending vertically, or nearly so, and that these accounts seem to be inconsistent with the accident airplane’s calculated flightpath. The Board recognizes that, in addition to these reports, 18 witnesses reported seeing a streak of light that originated at the surface or from the horizon, which also does not appear to be consistent with the airplane’s calculated flightpath and other known aspects of the accident sequence.


-page 265 of the report linked below

there is considerable discussion about perception around this evidence.

The NTSB conducted missile visibility tests in 2000 and compared the witness information to what they found in those tests - none of het witness statements matched a missile launch and flight:


Investigators determined that if witnesses had observed an actual missile attack on TWA flight 800 (beginning about the time that an airborne missile would have become visible to the time that the wreckage from TWA flight 800 fell into the ocean), they would have seen the following: (1) a light (the burning of the missile motor) ascending very rapidly and steeply for about 8 seconds (this rapidly moving light, which would have been visible for at least 12 nm575 from the launch point, would not descend like a firework or flare); (2) the light disappearing576 for up to about 7 seconds;577 (3) upon a missile (or warhead fragment) striking the airplane and igniting the fuel/air vapor in the CWT, another light (flames coming from the CWT), moving considerably slower and more laterally than the first light (although ascending somewhat for a short time), for about 30 seconds; (4) this light descending while simultaneously developing into a fireball falling toward the ocean. It is noteworthy that none of the witness documents included a description of such a scenario.

Therefore, the Safety Board concludes that the witness observations of a streak of light were not related to a missile and that the streak of light reported by most of these witnesses was burning fuel from the accident airplane in crippled flight during some portion of the postexplosion, preimpact breakup sequence.578 The Board further concludes that the witnesses’ observations of one or more fireballs were of the airplane’s burning wreckage falling toward the ocean.


-page 270 of the NTSB report located here



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by drock905
Two is not a lot but the government singled out these guys and then lied about what they reported to fit their explanation. I'm not saying it was def a missle I just found it interesting that they changed eyewitness testimony for the animation.
I think it would be impossible to make an animation that matched 200 different eyewitness accounts. It's pretty well known that witnesses don't all see and recall the same thing even when watching the same event.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


There are a few that can reach the height that 800 was at, but again, the damage isn't consistent with a MANPADS. An IR missile is going to go for the hot spots, which means engines and wings. Every large aircraft hit by a MANPADS over Iraq has been hit in the wing area. As I said before, even if it did track on the center fuselage (the 747 has an exhaust on the center fuselage for the AC unit), it would have to punch all the way through the AC unit, pass through the outer wall of the CWT, and cause it to explode. That's a lot to have to go through, for a pretty small warhead (some of the MANPADS warheads are less than 10 pounds of explosives, and that's going to go in all directions).



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


Some can reach that altitude and some have prox fuses, but none that I know for sure were available at the time outside of military testing. Anyone getting their hands on a MANPAD, let alone multiples, isn't very common in the US so it would have most likely had to be purchased outside the US and smuggled in. There really isn't much of a collectors market for live (non-decommissioned) MANPADs in the US as it's almost impossible to legally fire one. Most MANPADs I've come across on the collectors market are decommissioned if they are SAM. You can get a hold of live ground to ground systems like RPG-7, AT-4 and a few others that are used for anti armor. Ground to ground can be legally fired on private property with the appropriate permits and licensing.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 
and Arbitrageur

Do you have a vested Interest as to which story is to believed.

You both respond - and, [attempt to] refute - every single pro-whistle-blower post that has occurred on this thread.
edit on 6/18/2013 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


They address this by claiming the first missle struck the left wing.

They claim the NTSB said the wing was ripped and shattered when it hit the ocean but the right wing was apparently intact.

The doc also claims the wing being struck first would account for 800s bank to the left which they said the NTSB has no explanation for.

Another interesting fact was that was presented to some original investigators was what they called splatter evidence. It was molten impact areas across the center fuel tank that went across the damage cracks indicating it was there before it blew up. During the investigation traces of nitrates were found but the investigator admits he never sent it out for further investigation and he was wrong for doing so.

Take an hour and a half and watch the video, it will do a much better job to of explaining it then I can. Also keep in mind these whistleblowers are investigators that worked on the crash from day one and feel that they were silenced and kept from doing their jobs and are angry.
edit on 18-6-2013 by drock905 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


I have no vested interest in either story, other than for my own knowledge, but if someone is putting information out that isn't supported, and I haven't seen anything that supports a shootdown other than opinion and conjecture, then I'm going to try to refute it.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

But suddenly, a 747 gets hit by one, and immediately explodes into 5 pieces and crashes in flames? Say what? Does that make any sense to anyone?
Yes.
The Russians had a lot of hardening on their helicopters so the Mujahideen were given extra strong missiles to penetrate their defences, which would have annihilated a soft target like an passenger airliner.

btw: follow the instructions posted on this thread and watch the video.
edit on 18-6-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


Both of which would have occurred when the port wing CWT ruptured and exploded. It would have ripped the port side wing clean off of the fuselage and blown it into pieces. The pressure build up from a fire inside the closed fuel system would be catastrophic when it released. Probably doing far more damage than multiple MANPAD warheads could accomplish unless they all hit the exact same spot simultaneously. 10lbs isn't a lot of ordinance when compared to several thousand gallons of aviation fuel.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


But again, a shoulder fired missile would be far more likely to track the engine, which would impact the back of the wing, or out near an engine. It wouldn't shatter the wing, or cause enough damage to put them into a bank like that.


A300:



C-5:



The 747 wing would be somewhere between the two aircraft, which means that it should have been able to withstand the impact of a missile fairly easily.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


And yet that's the ONLY aircraft that gets hit by a shoulder fired missile and blows apart. An A300, a C-5, and a C-17 all get hit, and land just fine. But this particular plane blows up better than a Hollywood movie set. Right.

I like how you edited the quote to leave out the fact that three other aircraft were all hit by similar missiles, and not only turned around and landed safely, they were all returned to service within a few months. But somehow this particular plane was hit by a magic Hollywood missile that shattered it into pieces.
edit on 6/18/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The video claims that based on eyewitnesses the "missile" did impact from the rear, but you are right that isn't very much damage from a stinger type weapon. What kept the fuel from those examples to not ignite?



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by EViLKoNCEPTz
 


Here is the original photo that was suppressed in the US.


This Kabot photo (below) was suppressed in the USA, but thank the Almighty the French are free of our freedom of the press!




And here is a closeup of the missile:



Photo of Cruise Missile that shot down TWA Flight 800



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by madmac5150
 


I always had a feeling that this plane was shot down. Maybe we'll soon find out...

Interestingly enough I authored a thread on this 5 years ago

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

Old man John Lear even chimed in. Theres some interesting thoughts and ill be curious if the whistleblowers mentioned in my thread match the ones here. Haven't had a chance to look yet. But thought I'd offer it up



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


That actually looks how the NTSB said it happened. The streak doesn't begin from the ocean it starts in the air.



new topics

top topics



 
165
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join