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

reply to post by Loveaduck


That's what I've always thought.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by HomerinNC

 

No, I'm saying that the evidence that I've seen to date points to a mechanical failure. The whistleblowers haven't said it was shot down, and haven't released any evidence to show that it was anything but a mechanical failure that I've seen yet. Expert doesn't always mean right, but I'll wait to see what new evidence they bring to the table.

I've seen a number of mechanical failures over the years, including fuel tank failures that have led to crashes, similar to this one. I've read up on just about every major commercial and military accident that I could get my hands on, and while fuel tank failures aren't common, they also aren't unheard of.

Zaphod obviously you are a smart guy... Bit it is apparent you did not read the actual article that was in the OP.

“..This team of investigators who actually handled the wreckage and victims’ bodies, prove that the officially proposed fuel-air explosion did not cause the crash,” reads a statement by the producers of the film, which will debut on cable network EPIX next month. “They also provide radar and forensic evidence proving that one or more ordnance explosions outside the aircraft caused the crash.” However, the statement said they did not speculate about the source or sources of any ordnance explosions. Read more: www.foxnews.com...

The article clearly says the whistleblower showed evidence of ordnance explosions "outside the aircraft".


I remember seeing the video being mentioned.. I saw it once but it made a lasting impression on me. I knew by that point Govts very rarely tell the truth about anything. I have assumed all these years the Navy accidentally shot the plane down. The Govt trying to protect the integrity of the armed forces made up a bogus fuel tank explosion.

Here is the source of my suggestion that at least one witness saw a launch signature:

"Paul Angelides, Witness 83 - After work on July 17, 1996, I went to our ocean front summer rental house to have dinner with my wife and 1 year old son. After dinner my wife was bathing our son before putting him to bed so I decided to go to the ocean side deck to enjoy the view. As I walked through the sliding doors to the deck a red phosphorescent object in the sky caught my attention. The object was quite high in the sky (about 50-60 degrees) and was slightly to the west and off shore of my position. At first it appeared to be moving slowly, almost hanging and descending, and was leaving a white smoke trail. The smoke trail was short and the top of the smoke trail has a clockwise, parabolic shaped hook towards the shore. My first reaction was that I was looking at a marine distress flare which had been fired from a boat. I said to myself, someone must be in trouble.

I quickly realized that the object was too large and then began moving too fast to be a distress flare. I followed the object as it moved out over the ocean in the direction of the horizon. I lost sight of the object, as it was about 10 degrees above the horizon. In the same area of the sky out over the ocean, I then saw a series of flashes, one in the sky and another closer to the horizon. I remember straining to see what was happening as there seemed to be a lot of chaos out there. There was a dot on the horizon near the action, which I perceived as a boat. The flashes were then followed by a huge fireball, which dropped very quickly into the sea. I yelled to my wife. Come here quickly you've got to see this."

Witness 83 says he saw at least one flash close to the horizon near what he preceived to be a boat. If there were in fact two missles then this would be consistant with him witnessing one missle in flight already and the launch of a second one close behind it.

reply to post by KewlDaddyFatty


I'm not ignoring the radar data. I haven't finished looking into it enough to have a good grasp on it. Primary radar data shows everything on a return screen, from aircraft to birds, to everything in between. It's extremely difficult to read speeds on it, and I want to make sure I have a good grasp on what was shown that night before I comment on it.

As for non-experts, that's the problem. You might describe what you think you saw, but it might not be what you thought. They may have seen a missile shoot, and it could have been farther out than where the TWA was, or it could have been something else, but since the timing was so close, it was mistaken. I'm not grasping at straws, but the damage to the aircraft matches perfectly with a center wing tank explosion, which has happened in the past, and will probably happen in the future.

Is there a way of watching the Epix Documentary outside of the US?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

reply to post by GArnold


Because a shoulder fired missile doesn't cause the plane to explode in midair. It causes enough damage to make the plane crash. Even three missiles would be hard pressed to cause a 747 to explode in midair like that. They would have to all be targeted on the same area of the plane, and most missiles lock onto the heat source, and they are guided by the seeker. That means their impact point is random, based on where the seeker is looking. You can't precisely target an area. This would be the ultimate golden bb if a MANPADS caused a 747 to explode in midair.

Well, there's clearly some suspiciousness surrounding this entire and tragic event. And it started right from day one when many eyewitnesses saw a streak heading up towards the plane before it exploded in midair.

What I find curious is the CIA's involvement in this. Since when do plane crashes fall under their jurisdiction of investigation? That's for the FBI and NTSB isn't it? And the fact the CIA produced that sham of a video that was supposed put this case to bed is highly highly (2 highlys) suspicious to me. They got involved to cover something up.

Not only that, I find it very suspicious that the FBI would suddenly ban all eyewitnesses from testifying during the week long NTSB "public" hearing of the crash in Dec 1998. And not just their physical presence, but all witness accounts that had been collected during the "investigation" were not once mentioned during this hearing. It wasn't until more than 2 yrs after that hearing (4 years after the crash) that the NTSB mentioned some of the eyewitness accounts.

Stats:

Total Witness Accounts: 458

Streak of Light Witnesses: 183

Fireball Witnesses: 339

Reported Origin of Streak: 102

Originated from Surface: 96

Originated in Air: 6

flight800.org...

Who is still believing the "official" story on this? Even in the face of this latest development...

Originally posted by drock905
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

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

Absolutley. (I presume you to mean 'shoulder-launched')

Not all MANPADS are alike; however, the tactical ceiling of several shoulder fired IR homers is in the 15-17,000 ft range. That is the Pk(.85) envelope. However a missile can engage well above/beyond its advertized engagement envelope, it is just that the "Probability of Kill", the Pk drops below the DoD or the Contractor's certification of probability. How much does Pk drop? It depends, ....upon how lumbering, big and 'hot' the engagement target is. This could have been shot down by tens of thousands of units of Igla or Stinger or Strela variants.

All these warheads are "directed or annular HE with expanding or particular fragmentation" - they are made to strike vulnerable components like fuel tanks, lines and pumps, and not simply kill via 'skin to skin' contact or even the percussive brisance of the primary detonation. They roll to direct the blast, time correctly, magnetically detect, and make AI decisions for the 'kill.'

A little sparkless pump can cause a plane to explode in a million teensy pieces, but a missile exploding pellets and rods nearby cannot trigger the same thing from the same tank? Dangerous pumps, harmless missiles. I love that contention. Aircraft kills ideally and most often always involve secondary explosions from the target itself as well. The aircraft may travel a thousand feet or more before these occur.

Again, not conclusive in itself, but then again..... all that the CIA presented was peripheral brilliance as well. We should certainly believe them right?

For me, holding the actual explosion-extruded fuel tank in hand to show it being empty of fuel at the start of a long haul flight, where we had just re-fueled, and free of any HE contaminated penetrations, would have been wise, before tendering a conclusion.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by GArnold

 

Because a shoulder fired missile doesn't cause the plane to explode in midair. It causes enough damage to make the plane crash. Even three missiles would be hard pressed to cause a 747 to explode in midair like that. They would have to all be targeted on the same area of the plane, and most missiles lock onto the heat source, and they are guided by the seeker. That means their impact point is random, based on where the seeker is looking. You can't precisely target an area. This would be the ultimate golden bb if a MANPADS caused a 747 to explode in midair.

No where in my post did I say a word about shoulder fired anything. I was just saying from your responses on pages 1-4 at least it was clear you did not read the Fox News report linked to in OP. In fact I said I saw the video being mentioned once and it was clear to me that it was fired from the water and streaked up and hits something in the sky.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


The CIAs involvement was based around the suspicions of terrorism and it being an international flight. During international incidents it's quite common for the FBI to seek assistance from the CIA as they are the international intelligence arm of the country and have more extensive dossiers of International terrorist suspects and more knowledge of what's been occurring abroad.

reply to post by GArnold


I read the article, and at one point I thought it was shot down too. But the more I looked into missiles that could do it, the less I believe it.

You didn't have to say anything about shoulder fired anything, but the only missiles it could have been would be shoulder fired. If it was either a sub launched anti-aircraft missile, or fired from an Aegis, the signature would be hundreds of times bigger than a shoulder fired missile, and would have been seen by just about everyone that said they saw something flying towards the explosion site.

reply to post by EViLKoNCEPTz


Then why didn't they get involved with Egypt Air 990?

Originally posted by NickDC202
So am I the only one currently watching the phenomenal EPIX documentary on TWA 800 that the news in the OP originated? It is outstanding and I'm only an hour into it.

At work, but I'm definitely gonna watch it tonight.

reply to post by ButterCookie


I thought FOX news said release was later this month. Is it available now?

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Because the Egyptian authorities had ultimate say in that investigation, even though they asked the NTSB to lead it due to their resources. The Egyptians launched their own investigation not long after the NTSB found evidence that the crash was deliberate, and wanted to hand it over to the FBI (two weeks after the crash). The Egyptian report stated there was a failure in the elevator system and it was a mechanical failure.

Two weeks after the crash, the NTSB proposed handing the investigation over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as the evidence they had gathered suggested a criminal act had taken place and that the crash was intentional rather than accidental. This proposal was unacceptable to the Egyptian authorities, and as such the NTSB continued to lead the investigation. As the evidence of a deliberate crash mounted, the Egyptian government reversed their earlier decision, and the ECAA launched their own investigation. The two investigations came to very different conclusions: the NTSB found the crash was caused by deliberate action of the Relief First Officer Gameel Al-Batouti;[1] the ECAA found the crash was caused by mechanical failure of the airplane's elevator control system.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

John Lear could have been right (again).
2nd

whatreallyhappened.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">whatreallyhappened.com...

I've posted this link once before and wondered why no one was interested in seeing the manifest.

Please check out the passenger list this truth-seeker put together.

There are some interesting people on it!

reply to post by Zaphod58


Primary radar data is also filtered and processed to elimate such things as birds and false targets...

If accurate, this clearly shows an unidentified primary radar return cross paths with 800 on several different sweeps. We don't know the altitude of the object but it crosses paths. This adds reasonable doubt to the offical story.

The Associated Press just released this story 3 hours ago:

www.lohud.com...

Former investigators are pushing to reopen the probe into the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of New York, saying new evidence points to the often-discounted theory that a missile strike may have downed the jumbo jet.

I have followed ATS for a very long time(years) but was never had the urge to create a account until now. I am not sure how or why flight 800 was brought down, If it was terrorist or the USN, if it was suppose to be flight 800 or the El Al flight. What does seem to be obvious from the documentary is that we was fed alot of BS from the FBI,CIA and NTSB. Thank you to the investigators from the documentary that came forward and to the OP.