A mistake TWA 800

There is one thing about this indecent that never gets mentioned and I know I cant be the only one who saw it. I was at home watching tv the night this happened. The reporter actually said, not verbatim, that there is a report that a navy missile exercise is responsible for this tragedy. Not certain but I think it was from ABC. I remember thinking one, I can not believe a news reporter actually said this on live TV and also there is zero chance this is determined to be the factor that caused the tragedy. My next thought was the lawsuits involved would bankrupt the country. Ive looked for the clip on youtube on occasion and have never seen it since its original airing.

originally posted by: iso1111
There is one thing about this indecent that never gets mentioned and I know I cant be the only one who saw it. I was at home watching tv the night this happened. The reporter actually said, not verbatim, that there is a report that a navy missile exercise is responsible for this tragedy. Not certain but I think it was from ABC. I remember thinking one, I can not believe a news reporter actually said this on live TV and also there is zero chance this is determined to be the factor that caused the tragedy. My next thought was the lawsuits involved would bankrupt the country. Ive looked for the clip on youtube on occasion and have never seen it since its original airing.

I don't remember that, but I could certainly imagine it happening. Journalists aren't exactly known for being meticulous in vetting things before they report them.

Go back to 9/11 news coverage. All kinds of things were being speculated and reported with very little vetting. They were just throwing things at the wall to see what stuck.

As for lawsuits bankrupting the country, you realize the federal government runs on trillions of dollars annually and is over 30 trillion dollars in debt, right? Even if they paid each victim's family a billion dollars, that would have a negligible financial impact on the federal government.

a reply to: iso1111

The problem with that theory is that if there was a missile exercise going on, it wouldn’t be taking place directly under the main flight path to Europe out of the East Coast. The Navy has areas set up for missile exercises, and they close the airspace around them beforehand.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: iso1111

The problem with that theory is that if there was a missile exercise going on, it wouldn’t be taking place directly under the main flight path to Europe out of the East Coast. The Navy has areas set up for missile exercises, and they close the airspace around them beforehand.

Yeah, this was investigated. There was some airspace closed by the military at the time, but it was too far away for any ship potentially in the exercise area to have been responsible.

Conspiracy theorists could argue that it was covered up but you're talking about hundreds of sailors that would have known they were in the place where the investigation later claimed there were no Navy ships. Like you noted earlier int he thread, keeping all those guys quiet would be impossible, especially this long after the incident. It would've leaked by now.

"As for lawsuits bankrupting the country, you realize the federal government runs on trillions of dollars annually and is over 30 trillion dollars in debt, right? Even if they paid each victim's family a billion dollars, that would have a negligible financial impact on the federal government."

You do realize it was 1996 and the debt then was 5 trillion not 30$ T. I was also a lot younger and had no idea the governments ability to print money at the time would produce negligible inflation. The only thing producing it now is the lack of supply, and "supply chain issues" whether real or manufactured (no pun intended).

As far as keeping so many people quiet, how many people does it take to hit the fire button. Ive seen Under Siege. According to Tommy Lee Jones, its like one. Yes Im sure its a little more complicated. I wrote a parody song about 911 many years ago. One of my lines was if your asking wheres the evidence, Sandy Berger ate the documents. Yes different conspiracy but still thought it was a great line.

a reply to: iso1111

The entire crew would know they were firing a missile. The deck has to be cleared, and an SM-2 launch is not a quiet process. It would reverberate through the ship. As far as hitting the plane, everyone in CIC would see the radar screen, and the plane suddenly disappear. One person fires the missile, but it’s not isolated, or something you could hide from the crew.

originally posted by: iso1111
"As for lawsuits bankrupting the country, you realize the federal government runs on trillions of dollars annually and is over 30 trillion dollars in debt, right? Even if they paid each victim's family a billion dollars, that would have a negligible financial impact on the federal government."

You do realize it was 1996 and the debt then was 5 trillion not 30$ T.

Yeah I mean everything was lower then, including lawsuit payouts. Everything scales with inflation, so the difference in numbers really has no bearing on the overall point. The idea that a lawsuit would bankrupt the country just doesn't hold water.

originally posted by: iso1111

As far as keeping so many people quiet, how many people does it take to hit the fire button. Ive seen Under Siege. According to Tommy Lee Jones, its like one. Yes Im sure its a little more complicated.

Zaph already addressed this, but again look at what I said. Even crew members who weren't involved in the firing of the missile would be aware of where their boat was. When the investigation came out and said their ship was in a totally different place, they would realize a coverup went down.

originally posted by: ChiefD

originally posted by: anonentity
Here we have a good interview with Stew Peters about a naval accident that happened by lighting up the night sky and accidentally taking the lives of over two hundred commuters heading to Paris. This happened in peacetime and was basically just a routine naval exercise that went horribly wrong.But the interesting thing is how it was dealt with. In Bermuda a day or so later all the logs were wiped people were warned if they talked about it their lives wouldn't be worth living. The Captain was heard to say "what sort of idiots are they that they put the key in" Which begs the question of actually how many more mistakes happened which we think were just accidents. This seaman was told to keep it shut but the truth has a way of slipping through the cracks.www.bitchute.com...

No. The information in the OP has been discredited. No such things happened. I don’t know why people keep spreading this garbage.

TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories are discredited alternative explanations of the crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 (TWA 800) in 1996.[1] The NTSB found that the probable cause of the crash of TWA Flight 800 was an explosion of flammable fuel/air vapors in a fuel tank, most likely from a short circuit. Conspiracy theories claim that the crash was due to a U.S. Navy missile test gone awry, a terrorist missile strike, or an on-board bomb. In 2013, a documentary alleging that the investigation into the crash was a cover-up made news headlines with statements from six members of the original investigation team, now retired, who also filed a petition to reopen the probe.[2]

I was here the night it happened and plenty of eye witnesses saw the missile streak up from the sea!!! A lot of people, too many to just say it didn't happen plus there was a very poor video someone took of it!! Commercial aircraft like that don't just blow up because of a problem with their fuel tank.

Every fuel tank on the planet has fuel vapors lol. Everything electrical that is in the fuel tank is very low voltage and fused so it will never even think of causing a spark because a short to ground can never occur by design. The electrical stuff that can cause a short is always outside the tank.

I am a 30 year vet in the Marine industry so I know how these systems are made not to explode let alone catch on fire..

a reply to: jaydog360

And yet it does happen. Yes it’s very rare, but it does happen. Aircraft, now, have inerting systems in the fuel tanks that keep it from happening. Older aircraft, and aircraft at the time didn’t. Those systems are installed because of TWA 800.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: iso1111

The entire crew would know they were firing a missile. The deck has to be cleared, and an SM-2 launch is not a quiet process. It would reverberate through the ship. As far as hitting the plane, everyone in CIC would see the radar screen, and the plane suddenly disappear. One person fires the missile, but it’s not isolated, or something you could hide from the crew.

And everyone in CIC would have been threatened while the rest would have just thought it was another test. Then they could have sent the ship and crew to the middle east or south east Asia for a year making them lose any bearing on it and had the ships crew disembark one at a time and station them to some far off place again, making sure they did not say anything to anyone.

a reply to: jaydog360

And you think they wouldn’t put it together when it came out that a commercial plane just suddenly blew up right near where they were? And that in 25 years not a single crew member had a crisis of conscience?

originally posted by: MisguidedAngel
So are yall saying all those witnesses really did see a missile that day?

Over 100 people did. 3 SM-2 Naval Standard missiles were fired that night. They wanted to destroy that aircraft at all cost for some reason. The FBI were keeping everything from the investigators at the NTSB which had never happened before or since.

The smoking gun is the radar return that shows the initial missile explosion next to the aircraft as parts of the aircraft are blasted away at Mach 4.

A Stinger missile can not do that. Bone fragments were blasted through parts of the aircraft skin and embedded in it. Something that doesn't happen in a aircraft accident or fuel explosion.

Several witnesses were military vets and they knew exactly what they saw. The one guy lived on the beach. He saw the mast light of a ship, a very tall bright one and then the last missile streak up from the ship and decapitate the aircraft.

The first missile came from a shore base or ship near shore. It flew out ahead of the aircraft then came back over the top and blew its right wing off with its proximity fuse. Thats where people first see a huge vapor plume from the fuel tank as the plane is still moving forward at 300 mph and then another missile comes straight up from the bottom and hits the plane again. As its still somewhat in a large piece but falling the third missile comes and takes the cockpit off.

There was three debris fields in the ocean and each one is listed as the missiles hit.

First the left wing and parts.

Second is a lot of people and random parts, seats ect.

Third is the cockpit and more people and parts.

Three FBI agents were caught on video changing the location tags in the hanger where the aircraft was being pieced together. Then another was caught trying to beat bent aircraft skin in with a hammer to change the shape to hide the entry blast of a tungsten rod.

They found so many high explosive samples on the skin it wasn't funny but the FBI came back later after stealing evidence only to say there was none.

Every single NTSB investigator was flat disgusted in our government after that because they knew they were hiding something from the people. The FBI even gave them edited film from the ocean floor.

The FBI, CIA and the NTSB were all sued by the man who made it his mission to expose the cover up and he got every last little proof he needed, all except the metal parts that had Nitrates blasted into them. Nitrates that were found by the NTSB, FBI and NASA. The FBI made sure those parts would never be found again.

The proof was in the radar returns though. Mach 4 parts blasting one direction and then a shower of aircraft parts for 20 miles. Looked like confetti.

Makes one wonder, was it a nuke or biological onboard? They made dam sure that aircraft was blown to bits using three of the best missiles we had. So many aircraft pilots immediately called in that they seen a missile and then the aircraft explode it was a monumental cover up.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jaydog360

And you think they wouldn’t put it together when it came out that a commercial plane just suddenly blew up right near where they were? And that in 25 years not a single crew member had a crisis of conscience?

Watch the TWA Flight 800 documentary from 2013 !!!

If you were on that ship and your captain said we had proof there was a nuclear dirty bomb on that aircraft set to detonate over NY so we had no other choice but to shoot it down. Yeah its horrible but we had to. If anyone here thinks we did not do the right thing and you think you cant keep quiet about it for national security reasons just let me know and we will work it out.

They just blew a bunch of innocent people out of the sky for the nations security, who in their right mind thinks they would not just walk over and say sorry son and shoot you in the head and push your body off the side if you second guessed them? That is why they keep their mouths shut!!! They have a good reason to! They feel they were doing an unavoidable yet horrible job.

a reply to: jaydog360

No offense but you watch way too many movies. You have a really distorted picture of how the military operates.

a reply to: jaydog360

And you seriously don’t think they would put together that the plane was LEAVING New York, and wasn’t flying anywhere near, or towards the city? That scenario is unrealistic. And it’s been 25 years. No death bed confessions, no crisis of conscience, nothing. Not one person has said screw it and talked.

That’s also not how a surface to air missile works. They target the aircraft, fly directly at it, and detonate near it. They don’t fly past it, turn around, and hit just the wing. The first missile would have torn the fuselage apart as well.

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: 1947boomer

The requirements for the Fan Song guidance radar are such that there would have to be a container/trailer aboard with at least 600kW radar output (probably 1MW input power requirement) along with the launch rail for a 35' long SA-2. I would expect that a radar of that output might be noticed on local radars just from interference. This unit also wouldn't be easy to deep six even with a LASH ship and would certainly be discoverable after disposal unless the vessel made a run for deeper water before disposal. Further, if Iranians planned a revenge for the Vincennes, why go to all the complexity of a big missile with a high altitude intercept? Sit a few Jihadis at the end of the runway with Stingers/Stingerski's and take out an engine or two during take off.

You said that "if this had been a Navy SAM, both burns of the missile would have been the same color and brightness." That assumes that both motors would have been made of the same propellant. I haven't worked with Navy missiles in decades so I do not know modern flight envelopes and capabilities.

If your point is that putting an SA-2, Fan Song radar, and associated support equipment on a ship of sufficient size and speed to pull this off is a large, risky undertaking, I agree. When I started with the assumption that an SA-2 was used (based on the NY ANG pilot's observations) I quickly came to the conclusion that it would have to have been a state actor to have done this. There's not only the question of coming up with the money to do this but also coming up with an SA-2. I think it would have to have been supplied by a hostile state who had SA-2s in their inventory and had the motive to pull this off.

Why do it this way? I suppose for the same reason Putin likes to use Polonium-210 to get rid of his enemies. It's a way to let the intelligence agencies of the target nations know that Putin did it (since who else could come up with Polonium-210?) while still maintaining deniability.

With regard to the solid fuel rocket motors: I'm pretty sure the Navy missiles used Class 1.3 Hydroxyl Terminated Poly Butadiene fuel with added Aluminum powder. The Aluminum is added to increase the energy of combustion of the fuel and produces Aluminum oxide solid particles in the exhaust. Those particles emerge at high temperature and result in the bright white color of the exhaust plume. Storable liquid propellants don't produce solid particles in the exhaust.

a reply to: 1947boomer
DING DING DING!!!

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's the problem I have with the "official" explanation. If I remember correctly JP-5's Flash Point is about 140 degrees F. At that temperature it would start giving off combustible vapors. I understand that the tank was almost empty. The problem I have is that those vapors are heavier than air. As the increased temperature caused the fuel to give off vapors, the vapors would displace the air in the tank, pushing it out through the vent system.

The only way I can see it happening would be if the fuel tank's integrity was compromised letting in a rush of air.
I'm not intimately familiar with the fuel system on a 747. I'm just looking at the systems that I am familiar with. (DC-9, C-130, F-14, A-6, A-7, S-3, E-2)

a reply to: 1947boomer

The SA-2 is widely distributed, so using such a missile would not send any special message like Po 210. Use of an SA-2 is needlessly complex and, with so many moving parts, would not be a foolproof plan. As to the fuel spiked with Aluminum; this is a common energy enhancer and there are many more versions of this, some classified but guessable. There should be an oxidizer in the fuel, also, because the Al->Al2O3 won't just happen. A common one is ammonium perchlorate which is a likely candidate.
Given the situation, witness accounts, and CIA involvement plus the increased comms traffic at the time of the incident, I can believe that it was a monumental screwup by the US Navy and a coverup using whatever excuse they could come up with at the time.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Jet A/A1 has a flash point of 100 degrees. At the time they took off, the tank was already at 100 degrees, with isolated pockets as high as 140 degrees. The tank has a small vent, and was probably venting some, but it wouldn’t be enough to vent much before whatever ignited the vapor occurred.