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 ...
You are an awesome soldier. You march valiantly forward, in the face of 730 eyewitnesses that saw a missile streak up.
I admire your blind fealty!
He's ordered to say yes.
The difference between what I say, and what conspiracy theorists say, is that I can back my information up with specific facts and references from reputable sources. Like the company that built the aircraft in question and the company that flew it. Conspiracy theorists rely on "anonymous" sources, unquoted "secret" documents and statements from people whose income relies on the conspiracy theories they are selling.
Some cover up.
???? The CIA used the video to "explain away" over 100 eyewitnesses who saw some sort of light in the sky moving up and intersecting with the plane and/or the fireball.
The CIA had NO expertise in accident investigation, and obviously no expertise in flight dynamics.
Why did the CIA even get involved? It was a clear attempt to muddy the water and discredit hundreds of eyewitnesses.
Why do that?
Did the NTSB issue a statement saying "The CIA video is wrong and should not be considered."? No. They needed to shut up the eyewitnesses.
Me too.
It is comforting to know that many still believe that 'following orders' absolves one of all improper conduct.
The CIA was asked to produce the video because it had the facilities to produce the video. It used data it was given by the FBI. It did no analysis of its own. That information is widely available. Why don't you know it? Why don't the conspiracy sources you rely on tell you that? And the NTSB had no association with the CIA video and said as much. Their investigation was separate from the FBI investigation.
Again, this was a big deal where I live. Do you remember 9/11? Who can forget. I remember Flight 800. And Clinton was an a**. The Washington Post has removed the article but.......
TWA Flight 800: Background Stories
The Legacy:
Clinton Approves Tough Airline Safety Bill, Oct. 10, 1996
President Clinton signed legislation intended to prevent more passenger jets from crashing — and provide more compassion for survivors.
They are going to erase CNN/ABC/NBC/FOX AP/UPI and countless local news outlets documentation?! Are you kidding me?
Erase? You mean the press that covered up Clintons "infidelities" when he ran for Pres would need to be convinced to cover for him? The press that is 90% Dems & Libs. The one that covered his behind for years?
Btw, why are you shilling for him?
That is just it...YOU'VE PROVIDED NO INFO. I ask you for sources to back up your claims and you provide nothing. I don't have to discredit you. You do it yourself.
Nope. I already saw you discount Cashill so I'm searching for another source. And gave you one in post 279.
There are no sources. At least none that you've provided.
Check my posts. I provide links when I can. You just argue.
Your ignorance about our military and your willingness to believe a pack of lies are no excuse for you to defame the most honorable profession our nation can offer.
You are disgusting.
And almost all of yours don't even exist. Case closed.
Do you have links to contrary information?
I'm not. The only thing that separates the new media like FR from the old is that we rely on facts. When you can't back up YOUR OWN statements you discredit all of us. I asked you a simple question. I asked you to offer evidence to support your statements about what Clinton said the day after TWA 800 went down. You offer a link from a conspiracy site about a bill proposed months later. That isn't even close.
"You just argue."
Asking you to support your statements is "arguing"?
In the NTSB report? There isn't anything in it that I have direct evidence to refute.
"Do you have links to contrary information?"
Again, do you mean the NTSB report? I have loads of links to contrary info and have read most of them. For the most part, I find them extremely uncredible.
Except that I do. Where's your link to Clintons statement that TWA 800 was shot down? You gave none.
Cashill has reams of info but you refuse to accept him as a source..........because his info doesn't support your view.
I live in the area that this happened in. I remember very well the events. As do other Freepers. I don't need links to backup what I heard and saw.
You offer a link from a conspiracy site
There you go again. The ONLY reliable source is the Clinton coverup. Everyone else is lying. If you can dispute their info, do it. With links.
Asking you to support your statements is "arguing"?
Yes. I give links. You refuse to accept anything but Clintons version. And he had reasons for discrediting a missle. He was known as the Liar in Chief, yet you buy it. I suppose the coroner never saw a bullet in Ron Browns head either. The Clintons are as dirty as they come and I should believe him? I joined FR 6 years ago cause I was fed up with the garbage. I'm still not buying what he was selling.
The turbines on the 747 are electronically controlled. When the nose blew off they would no longer have any electronic input. The engines would automatically go to idle in this situation. The aircraft minus the nose would pitch up violently due to the change of the center of gravity and flat plate effect of the fuselage minus the nose. I did some calculations and the flat plate drag at 250 knots would have been close to the thrust of one the aircrafts engines. This force would be cause the very violent pitch up. This pitch up would cause the wings to stall and and probable structural failure of the wing.
After that aircraft lost it nose it dropped like a rock. I do not know what brought that aircraft down but it sure as hell did not climb 3800 feet after it lost its nose. That DID NOT HAPPEN!
You expect this to be on the net 10 years later?
Bump
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.