Posted on 06/22/2006 8:43:39 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
Editor's note: On the evening of July 17, 1996, at 8:19 p.m., TWA Flight 800, a Boeing 747, took off from Kennedy Airport, bound for Paris. At 8:31 p.m., over 730 people watched Flight 800 explode, killing all 230 of the people aboard.
Not long afterwards, millions of Americans watched their televisions in fascinated horror as search and rescue crews looked for survivors among the flaming debris. Only dead bodies were recovered.
Flight 800 is mostly an ugly memory for people these days. The U.S. government issued an explanation that a fuel tank had somehow exploded. Yet, they flatly denied any evidence existed of foul play, including the possibility that Flight 800 had been blown out of the air by a missile.
All but a few journalists accepted the government's version of events. Few bothered to investigate the numerous eyewitnesses, the radar records and the physical evidence that all suggested a strikingly different explanation of Flight 800's untimely demise. And those few who did question the government's version were made to look like fools or, worse, thrown in jail and prosecuted as criminals for meddling in an official investigation.
What really happened to Flight 800? ....
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Although Sven & Ken are in no position to conclude anything, this piece of the puzzle MUST fit into any official version of this incident.
Feb 97: Addendum: Time has passed, the mystery of the downing of Flight 800 still eludes us. (probably not all of us). Until all data is evaluated, we’ll have to wait for the official facts. From an idealistic view, there is no reason to think otherwise. (what a perfect world we live in).
Since Ken & Sven made this report public, we have heard many opinions on our sighting. We saw what we saw and report it as such. We have nothing to gain or loose. It has apparent that some aviation experience is required in reading this report.
There is one fact that bothers us, however. No mention is ever made of the fact that the explosion was at 7500 feet! We do not dispute the fact that something happened at 13,800 feet, but what happened after that. There is 5000 feet unaccounted for. >/b>
We would like to emphasize:
We approached the black-gray smoke cloud on the west side. We were at 7700 feet and were at the top edge of the cloud. The cloud center was at 7500 feet. There were 2 small bumps atop it. There was no smoke or smoke trails above it. It was still lit up a little by the sun, clear above.
We don’t why this has never been discussed in any scenarios.
I've "done it" -- 71,000 cites on google support my contention there is massive controversy over the fact that the FBI is all over the place on their accounts of how many witnesses said what...
tpaine, using your logic, here are 47,200,000 (yes, that is 47 million) cites that "prove" the Earth is flat...
Rokke, if you 'flat earth' supporters want to contend there is no controversy over the fact that the earth's a globe, there are 47 million google cites that prove a dispute exists, and that you are wrong.
Don't play their silly "rope a dope" here!
Take the portion of this thread where I debate Rokke regarding the flight simulation and count how many times he sticks his foot in his mouth.
Captain Lahr along with the scores of 747 pilots, TWA, employees, and Boeing engineers beleive this is the weak point of the government's conclusions.
Ask yourself why ROKKE resorts to name calling & sucking on his toes trying to spin out of the trap I put him in!
As each FOIA dribbles out, and we find critical evidence somehow LOST, the shroud of "mystery" is lifted.
My advice, just drop the silly rope a dope, you can't fight a "robot'.
Just post the embarrasing facts, (IE, if it was mechanical, why won't the government release all the evidence gathered?)then sit back and watch them squirm and scurry! Watch them bring their eraser and try to remove these glaring facts in print out in public domain.
But I want to impose a caution of sorts, don't just post anything, "Rokke" is right about most of the things he posts,he's a very bright individual and I understand how he feels, he makes VERY GOOD points most of the time....but I did find his archilles heel. "Rokke" is the only one(mechanical advocate) on here I feel worthy of debating this issue, the other was this "Asmodeus" dude (elmer)
Carry on the fun, I have bigger fish to fry at the moment,
For instance - what was the altitude of the huge fireball and how does that effect the possibility of a missile(s) shootdown?
And why have you continued to ignore the fact that 5000 feet is unaccounted for?
'There is one fact that bothers us, however. No mention is ever made of the fact that the explosion was at 7500 feet! We do not dispute the fact that something happened at 13,800 feet, but what happened after that. There is 5000 feet unaccounted for".
It's amazing that there's uncertainty about basic facts like the altitude at which the fireball occurred.
Ah yes. I remember that well. You spent ten posts demanding to see the evidence from the NTSB report that talked about how they computed TWA 800's flightpath. "It's NOT IN THERE" you claimed. You spent 10 posts hanging yourself with your own rope making that same claim. So I watched you strangle yourself for awhile and then in post 974, gave you all the pages of NTSB data that talked specifically about what you said it never discussed. 69 in total including radar plots, Boeing data and how and why different simulations were run, and their results. Your response...well you ignored all the NTSB stuff and posted a link from a conspiracy site to make your case. A couple days later, you finally decided to read part of the NTSB report (I handed it right to you, so I guess that is how you finally found it) and right from the get go, you get your info on the Center Wing Section totally wrong, and claimed the NTSB showed high G maneuvers were responsible for the aircraft breaking up. I knew right there you still hadn't read the report. Then you started babbling about JAL 123, but never did explain that JAL 123 flew for half an hour after its tail section was sheared off. And later tried to claim TWA 800's engines might of had their thrust revers deployed, even though the NTSB report specifically discusses that point and explains why that didn't happen.
Look, it just goes on and on with you. And all the while, you accuse me of putting my foot in my mouth. I've asked for specifics (quotes, post numbers) but you never give them. You call me a liar and then ask me to rewrite your false accusations because obviously you can't figure out how to make them reflect reality.
Your theories depend on your own ridiculously flawed "analysis" of a report you clearly have read almost none of (I think you may have read page 96, but since you mistook a keel beam for the whole nose, I'm still not sure).
If you want to know why your conspiracy kookdoom theories gain less and less traction with the American public, it is because people like you are the people who push them the hardest. Eventually, you are forced to cluster together on your little conspiracy sites and talk about "them" and how everybody but you is a "sheeple". And sooner or later, like George Donaldson, you will pass away and so will your silly and unsupported theories (when was the last time you read about a "towed sled").
Go fry some walleye, and if you have a few hours of freetime someday, try reading the whole NTSB report. It is actually pretty well written for a technical government report.
(page 97, NTSB Abstract)
But on the otherhand, look at the uncertainties!
"In addition to the uncertainties caused by radar track variation, radar data scatter, and imprecise aerodynamic characteristics previously discussed, there are uncertainties in the timing and physics of the final breakup that affect the final seconds of the simulations.
The timing of the wing tip and WCS failure were based largely on witness statements; therefore, they are not precise to the second. Further, the change in aerodynamics caused by the wing tip failure at a high AOA is uncertain, as is the effective ballistic coefficient of the main body after the WCS failure."
You people don't need me here "poking" holes in Rokke's theories, just go and READ the POS for yourself!
As a commercial pilot, I have some insight into all the things that can go wrong on large, hardworking, commercial aircraft. I read about "one time" malfunctions all the time. Often times, "one time" means "the first time" as parts get older. On the airplane I currently fly, we have an entire section of our emergency procedures added as a result of data gathered during the TWA 800 incident. And again, when I read information on conspiracy sites that runs counter to reality I am living, it isn't hard to dismiss them"
And yet eyewitnesses (you know, the people who were actually there?....) with your same or similar experience and background as what you claim to have are dismissed as idiots that didn't recognize what they were seeing because they didn't describe the NTSB's theory of what happened? That's what's so great about the internet. You don't even have to have stayed in a Holiday Inn to be an expert. Have a good day Mr. Hall.
These same people witnessed explosions at the WTC and black helicopters.
The National Guard chopper pilots and the commercial airline pilots whose eyewitness accounts are on file were also the same people that witnessed WTC explosions and black helicopters? Okay, now I understand. The conspiracies are a conspiracy. Good. Now that we have cleared up just who the lunatics are here, it makes the whole discussion that much clearer.
Be patient. The nice fellows in the white suits will be along with their rubber truck and minute now...
Honey that's not debate. It's insults directed at those who have a different POV than you.
Besides, everyone knows it wasn't a black ops takedown. It was Karl Roves wind machine. The one he used in New Orleans. Just ask DU. : D
Yep, you have it pegged.
You are correct, the insults have only flowed in one direction.
If you want to know why your conspiracy kookdoom theories gain less and less traction with the American public, it is because people like you are the people who push them the hardest.
-rokke-
Your very first post to me was. My post was only quoting another Freeper.
My post 60
Your post 64
defenderSD: "This disaster is still a big mystery as you demonstrate by pointing out that eyewitness reports don't even agree on the altitude where the huge fireball occurred. But even if the fireball happened at 7500 feet, that does not rule out an attack on the airplane with some kind of munitions. Just one possibility here and I'm only speculating: perhaps some kind of munition containing large pellets was first fired at the plane at 13,800 feet, and the pellets punctured the a full fuel tank in multiple locations causing massive fuel leaks out of the airplane. Then the pilots immediately took the plane to lower altitude as they prepared for an emergency landing. Then at the lower altitude of 7,500 feet, attackers fired some kind of incendiary flare at the airplane and lit the leaking fuel, causing the entire airplane to burn up in a huge fireball."
So far, tpaine has continued trying to ignore the report of the two airborne witnesses, while describing his own observations of the video he alleges he watched on TV in the following sketchy manner:
tpaine: "-- The video I saw did not have a view of the moon, -- and it was taken from a different higher angle looking down on the people, -- which cut out any view of a higher second object. -- It showed a streak of light rising from the horizon, a flash of light from above, and people pointing up and out to the flash. --end tape-
Why is he so reluctant to discuss the report of Faret & Wendell here?
Why is radialenginefan also so reluctant to discuss that report here?
Hatteras: " . . . eyewitnesses (you know, the people who were actually there?....) with your same or similar experience and background as what you claim to have are dismissed as idiots that didn't recognize what they were seeing . . ."
Perhaps he will discuss the Faret & Wendell report here at this time, keeping in mind that those 2 witnesses were actually there.
Read your own profile and you will understand.
They were both based on total contempt as I did explain.
Not true. -- I read it with a lot of interest when it was first posted. -- As nothing in it contradicts anything I've posted why should I comment on it?
while describing his own observations of the video he alleges he watched on TV in the following sketchy manner:
Bull. My comments on what I saw that night are far from "sketchy", as anyone reading the whole thread can testify.
Why is he so reluctant to discuss the report of Faret & Wendell here?
Why are you so weird about imagining I'm reluctant? -- What do you wish to discuss about Faret & Wendell?
Perhaps he will discuss the Faret & Wendell report here at this time, keeping in mind that those 2 witnesses were actually there.
Have at it kid, -- make a point, -- if you have one.
Were Sven Faret and Ken Wendell invited to testify at the Baltimore Hearings?......NO?
Well then their testimony rates the same as your's does...a big fat friggen ZERO!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.