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.

 

Did U.S. Gov’t Lie about TWA Flight 800 Crash?

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


There are two camps: That is was a terrorist attack the government covered up or that the navy accidental shot it down during training. The Navy was conducting a live fire exercise and TWA 800 was just outside the warning corridor at the time.




posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Flight 800 would have been at the extreme range for the Stinger, so I don't buy that one. I also don't buy the spark in the fuel tank bit. Jet fuel vapor is heavier than air. The fuel tanks in the 747 are vented, so as the air pressure drops when the plane gains altitude, the first thing to be vented is the air in the tank. There shouldn't have been enough oxygen in the tank to cause an explosion.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mikell
 


A lot of people saw something heading towards the plane. I remember seeing a news report in the first hours of a chopper pilot from either air national guard or the rescue wing saying he saw a streak towards 800 and with all the repeated news reports in the following days, I never saw that report again.

Navy on site in hours and closed off the area to civilian vessels...

We had divers, ROV's and a salvage vessel on site and was told by Coast Guard not to put divers in the water

One thing I remember clearly was the smell of jet fuel in the air. We had 3 to 5 ft rollers heading out but when we got on site it was flat calm, a lot of fuel in the water.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Just a little input. Aircraft electrical and electronic wiring is specially insulated, in "grounded" sheathes. If it must pass through a "wall" it is either through a grommet, a thick rubber ring, or a "cannon plug," s multi-pin connector that screws together and is insulated and grounded. The wire sparking inside the nearly empty fuel tank was, at best silly. If any electrical wiring was run across the inside of the fuel tank. It would have been connected to a plug at both walls. The insulation and plugs specifically designed for exposure to fuel and vapor. A grommet would leak, just what you want in an aircraft. The plug(s) would be mounted and sealed against the wall(s), no leakage. Those are per FAA requirements for construction of aircraft.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by spooky24
 

Navy did a good job of covering up pearl harbor. Where were the air craft carriers? Answer: out to sea.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Welcome to ATS-everything is a government conspiracy-and if you disagree you are part of the conspiracy as well.

The missile theory was discounted early because of lack of evidence.

Even if a missile could catch the aircraft 18 miles downrange, going 300mph, accelerating above 13,700 feet at a nine degree arc it would have to be the heat seeking type that disables one engine. The pilots would have time to feel the hit-as they did in the KAL flight when the pilot ask 'what was that' and it took more than 90 seconds to impact the ocean. Also, as soon as the engine stopped it's rotation both the stall warning and the power chimes-which are very loud-would be heard both by the FDR and CVR and that didn't happen.

Practically all contact explosive projectiles use a small explosive to fire the main charge. This is a combination of aluminum power and potassium nitrate which leaves easy to find traces behind. Not a single trace of any explosive was found either on the recovered plane or the recovered bodies.

Perhaps the best evidence is the recovered engine fans that were all bent instead of broken. The plunge downward would have bent the fan blades-however a heat seeking missile they would be completely destroyed. It is a fact that nothing hit the engines until impact.

Odd unknown stuff

I am still at a loss to explain how the plane broke apart at 13,700ft and climbing then waited 24 seconds at an altitude of 9,000ft to explode.

The strange dialogue between the pilots and controllers on the ground that the order to fly to 13,000 ft was countered to 15,000 ft-then quickly ordered back down to 13,000ft. That makes no sense whatsoever. Like they were trying to avoid something.

A Navy P-3, an anti submarine interceptor aircraft, which has no air to air capabilities, was at 19,000 feet and due southwest of the flight path. Had the flight went on and climbed to it's next altitude assignment they would have been dangerously close. The explanation that the craft was-on an unplanned basic training flight-looks hollow.

Of the 159 bodies recovered 8 died of drowning. The explosion and the rapid decompression combined with the rushing headwind of over 300mph should have killed all the passengers in seconds. That didn't happen.

Shrapnel was found in some of the bodies in the forward cabin and first class seating. This part was not exploded and in the rear of the aircraft were projectiles that penetrated deep into the muscle.

At 8:39.05 the pilots confirmed the change of altitude by going to 'one five thousand out of one three thousand' Then the plane blew up. No waring chimes or distress from the flight crew-and not a single thing from the FDR or the CVR.

Obliviously, the odd dialogue in the final 15 seconds of the Airplanes life could explain a lot. Everyone else, including myself, came up with nothing.

The center fuel tank exploding is current with the evidence however just saying a 'spark' caused it is , for the most part, fancy guesswork.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
On July 3, 1988, Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655) was shot down by USS Vincennes on the Bandar Abbas-Dubai route, which resulted in the loss of life of 290 innocent civilians from six nations, including 66 children. There were 38 non-Iranians aboard.

Would it be unreasonable to consider that a sitting American president in the run up to election day might choose to accept and cover up an act of retaliation rather than start a war? There were innocents on both aircraft...



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by CornShucker
 

Rumor has it the Iranian shoot down was a case of mistaken identity. A couple of chunks of data from a display was misread and lead the operators to ID the airplane as military not civilian. It took off from a airport that had both civilian and military aircraft stationed there. More info on it but won't go into it any further than that.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   


Rumor has it the Iranian shoot down was a case of mistaken identity.


That is correct. There are conflicting opinions of how this happened one being a false positive from out dated software and the other was a small bit of spittle was on the monitor console after someone sneezed. There were court marshals afterwards so one can assume some officers fell on their sword to protect enlisted men.
The confusion over the Air bases was never explained-then again there were court marshals so one can assume a breakdown in the chain of command.




top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join