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 ...
I have seen that pilot interviewed, he made no indication he ever saw a missile. No question there might have been a "summit". There was also a little "hanky panky" when the Value Jet went into the swamp.
It falls apart when you ask what kind of missile and where it was fired from.
Correction Again!!!!!!!!!! Clinton flunked OUT!
Good info, thanks.
Guilty! She was guilty for not revealing her husband's sources?
Way too much has been made about one man's recollections about what he witnessed that night. I have recent combat experience and have been fired on by missiles and AAA. I have also witnessed ordnance and fuel explosions of all types. Yet, I would never make an assumption of what caused one explosion over another. The guy in question flew helicopters in Vietnam. That doesn't make him an ordnance expert. And if you actually read his statements made early in the investigation, they are very ambiguous. And no where does he mention anything about seeing anything that would be obvious in a missile launch.
I really don't understand how such a corrupt person can be elected?
Thank you.
Unless you can prove to me he hasn't written the articles and books he's written about TWA 800, I stand by my statements. The fact that you think so highly of his credentials only removes "ignorance" from the list of possible excuses for the nonsense he publishes.
I didn't pass the judgement. The jury did.
I agree. If cars where blowing up on the highway by the hundreds because they where setting in the parking lot for a few hours then maybe i would believe it.
I attended a session with over 500 in attendance. During the question and answer session one gentleman stood up and said, "I am a retired TWA 747 captain. There are 39 additional retired 747 captains in this room. All of us are in complete agreement that while an explosion in the center fuel tank would have "eventually" brought down Flight 800, it would not have done so immediately, nor in the way described. Something is very wrong with the scenario the government has described.
About a pound of plasic explosive exploding in a cargo hold tore a Pan Am 747 apart over Scotland in 1988. You're telling me that an exploding fuel tank wouldn't do the same to a 747 over Long Island?
Witnesses will stand by their initial story unless rock-solid proof or embarrassment make them recant. A recent example was when Columbia broke up. Fox had interviewed an older man (with a service cap) about what he saw over the sky from his Texas home. He said he saw the shuttle and 3 chase planes fly over. He was absolutely sure about this until he turned on the TV and realized what was going on. Knowing that "chase planes" that fly 12K mph at 200,000 ft do not exist, he was forced to admit he did not see what he thought he did. Now, remove the technology limitation to what he first claimed. I'll bet you this guy would still swear he saw chase planes.
Gary, on a flight I was on last night we had a malfunction that kicked off the autopilot (among other things) without notice. There happened to be four highly qualified (OK, 3 and me) MD-11 pilots on board. We all sat in the cockpit and pulled out all the manuals and discussed what we thought the cause might be and how we could work around it. We even consulted with maintenance specialists on the ground. But none of us could figure what had happened or how we could work around it. Then, on 10 mile final, the problem fixed itself. What's that prove? It proves that things happen in airplanes that cannot always be explained by the folks who are supposedly experts in that airplane. And that was a relatively minor and not totally uncommon problem. How many of those 39 retired 747 captains had any experience whatsoever with explosions in airline fuel tanks? How many of them studied all the evidence, with the full cooperation of the engineers who actually designed the aircraft they were looking at? Among the guys I fly with, I could probably find a significant number who believe just about anything. That doesn't mean what they believe is true.
What was the fuel to air ratio in the tank? Do you really think it would support an explosive rapid burn? Remember it is essentially kerosene!
Ever try to make kerosene vapor explode at that altitude? Ever try to make kerosene vapor explode at sea level pressure?
Rokke, I just talked to Mike who did crash investigations at one time. He said you might want to check on the Iranian 747, because if he recalls correctly it was struck by lighning during an approach to either Madrid or Barcelona in Spain.
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.