Movies and TV TWA Flight 800 Investigators Claim the Official Crash Story Is a Lie - Page 2

Stewie · 06-19-2013, 07:47 AM

A new film claims the official government report on the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996 is an elaborate fabrication, but the most shocking part of the story is that charges are being leveled by some of the very investigators who put the report together. Six experts who appear in the film were members of the National Transportation Safety Board investigation team that concluded the crash was an accident, but they now claim they were silenced by their superiors. The movies, "TWA Flight 800" will debut on EPIX TV next month, on the 17-year anniversary of the crash.

TWA Flight 800 was en route from JFK Airport in New York to Paris, France, when it exploded and crashed off the coast of Long Island, killing all 230 people on board. From the very beginning, there were some who speculated that the plane was the victim of a terrorist attack, leading the FBI to conduct its own criminal investigation. Among the possibilities that were suggested as the cause were a bomb in the cargo hold, or an anti-aircraft missile. Several witnesses even claimed they saw an object or streak of light that looked liked a missile or rocket moving toward the plane before it exploded.

The final NTSB reported said that faulty wiring connected to a central fuel tank caused a blast that destroyed the fuesalage, however, there were still many skeptics and conspiracy theorists who have long doubted that official story. In one particularly famous example, Pierre Salinger, a former Press Secretary for President John Kennedy and reporter for ABC News, claimed he'd seen proof that the U.S. Navy shot down the plane and then covered it up.

Now, those theories are likely to get a new airing, thanks to accident investigators who worked on the TWA 800 case, but say they were not allowed to speak up at the time of the official report. The experts include NTSB and TWA accident investigators, who say they are only able to speak up now that they are retired. According their statements in the film, they believe the official explanation is wrong and the damage was caused by an explosion that came from outside the plane.

The filmmakers won't speculate on what could have caused such an explosion, and haven't yet offered up evidence to support their theory (you'll have to watch on July 17), but they are asking the NTSB to re-open the investigation. Whether or not that happens, or even if a follow-up reaches the same conclusions as the original, this new film will ensure that the alternate theories and claims up a cover will probably never be put to rest.

http://news.yahoo.com/twa-flight-800...120157562.html

**Donger** · 06-19-2013, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gblowfish

The Navy was conducting ground to air missile tests off Long Island.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

**gblowfish** · 06-19-2013, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosty

So, the Navy tests live missiles near one of the busiest airports in the world?

Seems legit.

They were using dummy warheads. That's why only small amounts of explosive residue was found in the seating compartment. The damage to the fuselage was consistent with a projectile entering from one side and exiting the other, right in front of the wing and behind the cockpit section. The nose area of the plane basically fell off and the rest of the plane went down into the ocean a few thousand yards further downstream.

**gblowfish** · 06-19-2013, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Nope, it's just what I think.

Salinger thought the same thing:
http://www.welfarestate.com/twa800/pierre.htm

And these guys think the same thing:
http://www.twa800.com/index.htm

The FBI and The Navy did a helluva job concealing evidence. That's the point.

saphojunkie · 06-19-2013, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gblowfish

They were using dummy warheads. That's why only small amounts of explosive residue was found in the seating compartment. The damage to the fuselage was consistent with a projectile entering from one side and exiting the other, right in front of the wing and behind the cockpit section. The nose area of the plane basically fell off and the rest of the plane went down into the ocean a few thousand yards further downstream.

Again... the Navy is testing missiles next to one of the busiest airports in the world? Seems legit.

**Donger** · 06-19-2013, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gblowfish

The FBI and The Navy did a helluva job concealing evidence. That's the point.

I see. That's chilling.

Frosty · 06-19-2013, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gblowfish

They were using dummy warheads. That's why only small amounts of explosive residue was found in the seating compartment. The damage to the fuselage was consistent with a projectile entering from one side and exiting the other, right in front of the wing and behind the cockpit section. The nose area of the plane basically fell off and the rest of the plane went down into the ocean a few thousand yards further downstream.

Why would the Navy do any kind of missile test anywhere near NYC? There are several very large airports in the area.

I could maybe buy a terrorist attack but I really don't see the logic in the military theory.

**loochy** · 06-19-2013, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gblowfish

Nope, it's just what I think.

Salinger thought the same thing:
http://www.welfarestate.com/twa800/pierre.htm

And these guys think the same thing:
http://www.twa800.com/index.htm

The FBI and The Navy did a helluva job concealing evidence. That's the point.

So did Bob Lazar.

Frazod · 06-19-2013, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Again... the Navy is testing missiles next to one of the busiest airports in the world? Seems legit.

Right, because nobody in the military ever ****s anything up.

**gblowfish** · 06-19-2013, 10:40 AM

Here's why they THEORIZE the Navy may have been involved. -BTW, I'm not saying with any certainty this is what happened. I just don't buy that a fuel tank just blew up like that. I think it warrants further investigation. Info comes from here:

http://tinyurl.com/lrgeqcc

Why Did Attention Focus on a Test Missile?

Initially, it was claimed that there was virtually no explosive residue on the 747 wreckage. In normal practice, missiles being tested or used for training have dummy warheads; inert packages which are the same size and weight of real warheads but which do not explode.

In many cases, such practice munitions are recovered and reused.

An Associated Press Article on March 10, 1997 reported the following:
The report said “compelling testimony” indicated a missile hit the
plane on the right side, forward of the wing, passing through the
fuselage without exploding.

This is consistent with a test missile with a dummy warhead. Of course, it was not known at the time that evidence of explosive residue was even then being concealed from the public, but by that time, the claimed lack of explosive residue had suggested a test missile to most observers, and attention began to focus on the Navy’s Cooperative Engagement Capability system, which had been undergoing tests, including live missile firings, along the Atlantic seaboard all that summer.

When it was finally revealed that there was explosive residue on the remains of the Boeing 747, the mainstream media tried to explain it away as contamination from a bomb sniffing dog training exercise that ultimately turned out to have taken place on a different aircraft entirely.

Had it been true, remnants from a training exercise did not explain a swath of residue ten rows long and three seats wide reaching from an obvious perforation in the forward section trailing back to where the forward section broke away from the rest of the 747.

**Donger** · 06-19-2013, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gblowfish

I just don't buy that a fuel tank just blew up like that.

Why not?

**gblowfish** · 06-19-2013, 10:48 AM

Some people have theorized that this was a stinger missile fired as an act of terrorism, perhaps funded by Iran. But (of course) that has never been acknowledged or confirmed. But that is another missile theory.

I think the evidence points towards the cause being a missile, not an exploding fuel tank. Who fired it? That's the $64 quesiton. And for whatever reason, the US Govt doesn't want that information confirmed or known.

**Donger** · 06-19-2013, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gblowfish

Some people have theorized that this was a stinger missile fired as an act of terrorism, perhaps funded by Iran. But (of course) that has never been acknowledged or confirmed. But that is another missile theory.

I think the evidence points towards the cause being a missile, not an exploding fuel tank. Who fired it? That's the $64 quesiton. And for whatever reason, the US Govt doesn't want that information confirmed or known.

Unfortunately, the Stinger's range is ~15,000 feet.

**gblowfish** · 06-19-2013, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

Unfortunately, the Stinger's range is ~15,000 feet.

the FIM-92 Stinger missile has a range up to 15,000 feet. The plane was at 13,800 feet when it blew up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger

**Dave Lane** · 06-19-2013, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gblowfish

Here's why they THEORIZE the Navy may have been involved. -BTW, I'm not saying with any certainty this is what happened. I just don't buy that a fuel tank just blew up like that. I think it warrants further investigation. Info comes from here:

http://tinyurl.com/lrgeqcc

Why Did Attention Focus on a Test Missile?

Initially, it was claimed that there was virtually no explosive residue on the 747 wreckage. In normal practice, missiles being tested or used for training have dummy warheads; inert packages which are the same size and weight of real warheads but which do not explode.

In many cases, such practice munitions are recovered and reused.

An Associated Press Article on March 10, 1997 reported the following:
The report said “compelling testimony” indicated a missile hit the
plane on the right side, forward of the wing, passing through the
fuselage without exploding.

This is consistent with a test missile with a dummy warhead. Of course, it was not known at the time that evidence of explosive residue was even then being concealed from the public, but by that time, the claimed lack of explosive residue had suggested a test missile to most observers, and attention began to focus on the Navy’s Cooperative Engagement Capability system, which had been undergoing tests, including live missile firings, along the Atlantic seaboard all that summer.

When it was finally revealed that there was explosive residue on the remains of the Boeing 747, the mainstream media tried to explain it away as contamination from a bomb sniffing dog training exercise that ultimately turned out to have taken place on a different aircraft entirely.

Had it been true, remnants from a training exercise did not explain a swath of residue ten rows long and three seats wide reaching from an obvious perforation in the forward section trailing back to where the forward section broke away from the rest of the 747.

So there is no evidence at all to the theory a missile took it out.

**Dave Lane** · 06-19-2013, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

Why not?

06-19-2013, 07:47 AM
Stewie MVP Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: West of the Equator Casino cash: $1639901	TWA Flight 800 Investigators Claim the Official Crash Story Is a Lie A new film claims the official government report on the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996 is an elaborate fabrication, but the most shocking part of the story is that charges are being leveled by some of the very investigators who put the report together. Six experts who appear in the film were members of the National Transportation Safety Board investigation team that concluded the crash was an accident, but they now claim they were silenced by their superiors. The movies, "TWA Flight 800" will debut on EPIX TV next month, on the 17-year anniversary of the crash. TWA Flight 800 was en route from JFK Airport in New York to Paris, France, when it exploded and crashed off the coast of Long Island, killing all 230 people on board. From the very beginning, there were some who speculated that the plane was the victim of a terrorist attack, leading the FBI to conduct its own criminal investigation. Among the possibilities that were suggested as the cause were a bomb in the cargo hold, or an anti-aircraft missile. Several witnesses even claimed they saw an object or streak of light that looked liked a missile or rocket moving toward the plane before it exploded. The final NTSB reported said that faulty wiring connected to a central fuel tank caused a blast that destroyed the fuesalage, however, there were still many skeptics and conspiracy theorists who have long doubted that official story. In one particularly famous example, Pierre Salinger, a former Press Secretary for President John Kennedy and reporter for ABC News, claimed he'd seen proof that the U.S. Navy shot down the plane and then covered it up. Now, those theories are likely to get a new airing, thanks to accident investigators who worked on the TWA 800 case, but say they were not allowed to speak up at the time of the official report. The experts include NTSB and TWA accident investigators, who say they are only able to speak up now that they are retired. According their statements in the film, they believe the official explanation is wrong and the damage was caused by an explosion that came from outside the plane. The filmmakers won't speculate on what could have caused such an explosion, and haven't yet offered up evidence to support their theory (you'll have to watch on July 17), but they are asking the NTSB to re-open the investigation. Whether or not that happens, or even if a follow-up reaches the same conclusions as the original, this new film will ensure that the alternate theories and claims up a cover will probably never be put to rest. http://news.yahoo.com/twa-flight-800...120157562.html
Posts: 13,629

06-19-2013, 10:40 AM	#24
gblowfish Be Kind To Your Pets Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Glorious Independence, MO Casino cash: $17606178 VARSITY	Here's why they THEORIZE the Navy may have been involved. -BTW, I'm not saying with any certainty this is what happened. I just don't buy that a fuel tank just blew up like that. I think it warrants further investigation. Info comes from here: http://tinyurl.com/lrgeqcc Why Did Attention Focus on a Test Missile? Initially, it was claimed that there was virtually no explosive residue on the 747 wreckage. In normal practice, missiles being tested or used for training have dummy warheads; inert packages which are the same size and weight of real warheads but which do not explode. In many cases, such practice munitions are recovered and reused. An Associated Press Article on March 10, 1997 reported the following: The report said “compelling testimony” indicated a missile hit the plane on the right side, forward of the wing, passing through the fuselage without exploding. This is consistent with a test missile with a dummy warhead. Of course, it was not known at the time that evidence of explosive residue was even then being concealed from the public, but by that time, the claimed lack of explosive residue had suggested a test missile to most observers, and attention began to focus on the Navy’s Cooperative Engagement Capability system, which had been undergoing tests, including live missile firings, along the Atlantic seaboard all that summer. When it was finally revealed that there was explosive residue on the remains of the Boeing 747, the mainstream media tried to explain it away as contamination from a bomb sniffing dog training exercise that ultimately turned out to have taken place on a different aircraft entirely. Had it been true, remnants from a training exercise did not explain a swath of residue ten rows long and three seats wide reaching from an obvious perforation in the forward section trailing back to where the forward section broke away from the rest of the 747.
Posts: 40,843

06-19-2013, 10:48 AM	#26
gblowfish Be Kind To Your Pets Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Glorious Independence, MO Casino cash: $17606178 VARSITY	Some people have theorized that this was a stinger missile fired as an act of terrorism, perhaps funded by Iran. But (of course) that has never been acknowledged or confirmed. But that is another missile theory. I think the evidence points towards the cause being a missile, not an exploding fuel tank. Who fired it? That's the $64 quesiton. And for whatever reason, the US Govt doesn't want that information confirmed or known.
Posts: 40,843