Replies

Thanks, now I see how your scenario works. I read a lot on the incident at the time, but I don't recall seeing that theory. It looks plausible to me, but it doesn't quite fit the evidence, in my opinion.

You say we hardly need a conspiracy theory to explain such a mishap. Don't get the idea that I'm a conspiracy nut, TWA 800 is the only case I can think of that I really suspect a coverup . My assumption on this has been that the government experts are not idiots and know what brought TWA 800 down. Apparently you do not share this assumption (and that's certainly understandable).

This has been long enough ago, I can no longer recall many of the points where I had problems with the government's case, but here are a few:

I'm no expert, but I think the zoom-climb video produced by the CIA was pure bunk.

I think it would be hard for anyone that has seen them both (even just in movies) to mistake a fuel fire for a missile trail. Did you happen to see the terrorists shooting a shoulder fired missile at the cargo airplane a few months ago in Iraq (or was it Afghanistan?). A missile trail is pretty distinctive. I would know the difference and some of the 150 or so eye witnesses saying they saw a missile (or object rising to meet the plane) were combat pilots with direct personal experience who would definitely know the difference. The government claimed these guys were kooks or whatever, but I can't discount them so easily.

James Sanders, the reporter that tried to steal a piece of seat fabric to have it lab tested was sentenced to jail for his acts. Why so harsh if there was no coverup?

I think it would be hard for anyone that has seen them both (even just in movies) to mistake a fuel fire for a missile trail. Did you happen to see the terrorists shooting a shoulder fired missile at the cargo airplane a few months ago in Iraq (or was it Afghanistan?). A missile trail is pretty distinctive. I would know the difference and some of the 150 or so eye witnesses saying they saw a missile (or object rising to meet the plane) were combat pilots with direct personal experience who would definitely know the difference. The government claimed these guys were kooks or whatever, but I can't discount them so easily.

The problem here is that the eyewitnesses could not have seen an object the size of any known missile at the height and distance of the 747. It would have been, in the words of one alt.disasters.aviation poster, like seeing a pin at the distance of a hundred yards. The word "object" is really only a semantic device to describe what they saw, which was, in just about every case (check the numerous eyewitness reports) comprised of orange, red, orange-red, or pink-red light. Some claimed to have seen a trail of smoke.

Another problem with this, as it relates to a missile is that, assuming the alleged missile to have been of the portable variety, it would not have had the ability to reach a ceiling of over 13,000 feet, the height of the 747 at the time. Even if it had, its engines would not have been burning at or near the point of impact; and even assuming the burn was continuing at the point, it would not have been visible to the extent reported by the witnesses, especially considering their distance (around ten miles) from the event. In fact, I don't believe these missiles even show a "burn" per se.

A larger missile, such as the Navy Standard (mentioned by numerous pro-conspiracy theorists) would have lit up the evening sky, making witnesses of virtually everyone who had been outside at the time; not just the few who happened to be looking up and eastward.

James Sanders, the reporter that tried to steal a piece of seat fabric to have it lab tested was sentenced to jail for his acts. Why so harsh if there was no coverup?

Perhaps because stealing items associated with the continuing investigation of a major accident is a serious crime. If memory serves, a number of people were arrested last year for taking pieces of debris from the space shuttle disaster. It's really no light or laughing matter.