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

reply to post by _Del_


No, it's possible that it did, I just think the odds of it happening are remarkably small, and the evidence for a CWT explosion are pretty high.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by EViLKoNCEPTz

 

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

I've always been curious about why Egypt Air 990 was so quickly resolved given the flight audio; but I honestly have never examined it.

Originally posted by EViLKoNCEPTz
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

Ask the FBI and NTSB, not me. Those agency's are the ones who request assistance if they feel they need it. If you want my guess I'd say the investigating agency's didn't feel they required the CIAs assistance during the investigation. The CIA doesn't become involved in domestic incidents without a direct request from the agency in charge.

My understanding has always been that the White House was the catalyst to involve the CIA to create that animation.

Originally posted by Springer
I watched the video, the radar return showing the debris moving at speeds faster than sound are very, very convincing. I agree with the reporter in the documentary, that is the proverbial smoking gun that proves this was not a low velocity(sub sonic speed) fuel tank explosion.

I sincerely hope the NTSB opens a new investigation into this tragedy, the one that was performed back in 1996 is so full of holes, apparent malfeasance (changing of evidence tags and manipulation of parts of the aircraft,etc...), and utter neglect it's just hard to fathom they can ignore this.

Springer...

Glad you enjoyed it! It is quite compelling.
Would you agree that it was good that the creators of the documentary avoided going into things like the international military exercises occurring off the coast of Long Island at the time of the incident or the fact that an EL AL flight was scheduled to be in the flight path at the time but due to a delay at the gate flight 800 got ahead in the cue?

Personally, as much as I would have loved to hear those aspects explored I thought it was most appropriate to simply present the mountain of facts that the flight exploded due to an object from outside the aircraft.

Interested in your thoughts.

reply to post by doryinaz
I found it...on Youtube....44 minutes long.....check it out!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by NickDC202


They may have been in that particular investigation. Historically though it's the primary investigating agency(s) that request their assistance in domestic investigations that have international ties.

Originally posted by CowboyWilly
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.

Welcome to becoming an ATS poster; glad to have you here.

Glad you enjoyed the documentary, it is very compelling.

Originally posted by EViLKoNCEPTz
reply to post by NickDC202

 

They may have been in that particular investigation. Historically though it's the primary investigating agency(s) that request their assistance in domestic investigations that have international ties.

You're absolutely right. Although historically the NTSB is the primary investigating agency in incidents like Flight 800, however as the documentary showcases, the FBI was running the show from the beginning much to NTSB's dismay.

reply to post by NickDC202


Well, the CVR and FDR proved pretty conclusively that it was a deliberate crash. The aircraft was flown by a pilot that should have still been on his break, he was heard saying "I rely on God" for almost the entire last minute or more of the recording, as well as one pilot asking "Did you shut the engines?"

abcnews.go.com...

Just my two cents...

I think a SAM was launched, (some portables have an effective range of up to 3 KM) and it exploded just shy of its target...taking out the 747...

reply to post by Zaphod58


Thanks Zaphod. As I said, I have never looked into the Egypt Air flight; I really appreciate the knowledge. Thank you.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

The CIA was ASKED to do the animation for TWA 800. They didn't just suddenly say "Hey, we're going to make this animation up to show what happened." In the case of 990, they weren't asked to make an animation for it, so they didn't.

At the start of FBI's investigation, because of the possibility that international terrorists might have been involved, assistance was requested from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[99] CIA analysts, relying on sound-propagation analysis, were able to conclude that the witnesses could not be describing a missile approaching an intact aircraft, but were seeing a trail of burning fuel coming from the aircraft after the initial explosion.

en.wikipedia.org...

Because the CIA are experts in aircraft accident animation reconstructions right?

I would have thought the FAA or NTSB would be the experts there, go figure.

Exactly.

My contention is that the CIA was brought in once it was determined that the craft was shot down by our own guys. They were tasked with "manipulating" eyewitness testimony to negate the claims of a surface to air object that was seen right before the main explosion. Essentially to cover it all up.

The "tasks" that the official story attributes to the CIA with regards to this case are tasks that normally the NTSB would employ with any plane crash. It's what the NTSB is for. In other words the CIA was not needed. Like for instance, with the Egypt Air 900 crash; which was also intentional, but not our problem since it was an Egyptian pilot who deliberately caused it.

The CIA got involved with TWA because the evidence showed that the plane was in fact shot down. I'll be generous and will give it to them that they may have initially thought it was terror related, but once they realized it wasn't, then it became a misson to show it was a freak gas tank explosion. Because why would the CIA ever implicate its own country for wrongdoing in anything.

reply to post by NickDC202


Yes I would agree, I think this is a very well done and intelligent reexamination of the farce that was the NTSB/FBI investigation/report into TWA 800.

I sincerely hope it opens eyes and causes questions to be HONESTLY answered.

Springer...

reply to post by NickDC202


It was a pretty interesting investigation, because there were a number of Egyptian military on board, including one high ranking general and his bodyguards. There was speculation for awhile that one of the bodyguards heard the struggle, broke into the cockpit, and fired at the pilot that put the aircraft into a dive, and may have compromised structural integrity, allowing the aircraft to break apart in the dive. The aircraft approached, or passed Mach 1, and pulled up several times before breaking apart. When Boeing repeated the flight in the simulator, the aircraft was able to recover without breaking up, so the thinking was that something happened to allow the airflow to rip the front end apart, which led to the plane breaking up (the only radar site that could see out that far showed multiple radar returns prior to impact), but it was later determined that the aircraft was intact at the time of impact.

Egypt was following the investigation, and disagreed with the conclusions of the NTSB, so launched their own investigation, and concluded that there was a flaw with the elevators (at times one elevator was in a nose up position, while the other was nose down).

The full NTSB report is here.

reply to post by NickDC202


Usually when there is suspicion of foul play a criminal investigation agency such as the FBI is the lead with NTSB being more of a supporting role. Then if foul play is ruled out the FBI hands the lead back to NTSB and takes a supporting role. If foul play is proven the FBI remains the lead. Flight 800 was originally suspected of being hit by terrorists. Which this is where a cover up kind of falls apart. If it was a friendly fire shoot down, why not just claim terrorists did it with MANPADs? It would have been a simpler and less convoluted story to use as a cover. The only reason I can think of is lack of evidence to support a missile strike. It would've been a lot less work to say "terrorist so and so hit flight 800 with a shoulder fired missile" than to try and hide a missile strike behind a CWT explosion.

reply to post by Zaphod58


zaphod , have you watched the doc yet? You've been commenting all day I would like to know if your opinion will change after watching the evidence.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It would have had to be the fluke shot from hell. So it would have had to somehow go through the wing, and into the CWT, and detonate that. Possible, not likely, but possible, and the most amazing luck you've ever seen.

...contrasted with the odds of a fuel pump causing a CWT to explode. Once a missile is present, it is indeed the parsimonious explanation.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


The Air Force lost two (confirmed, it might have been more) KC-135s around the time this happened when the center wing fuel tank exploded. Several other commercial and military aircraft have been lost when fuel tanks exploded, some with outside help (lightning strikes), some from internal malfunctions.

reply to post by drock905


I'll finish watching it tonight after dinner. I'm on three days off (days off are rare), so I haven't had time to sit down and watch it all in one sitting.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

 

The Air Force lost two (confirmed, it might have been more) KC-135s around the time this happened when the center wing fuel tank exploded. Several other commercial and military aircraft have been lost when fuel tanks exploded, some with outside help (lightning strikes), some from internal malfunctions.

Yes, I have friends at Lockheed who have sent me the pics of such (they are fascinated with Boeing blunders ). Those incidents place the likelihood of a CWT ignition by pump malfunction at about

5 in 45,000,000 (being very conservative)

pretty low odds as well.