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 ...
The documentary had a lengthy section on these men and what they saw.
Then you should understand why there would be residue from the missile propellant if the plane was struck by one.
I was suspect myself until I read the facts about the investigation. However, I did question the distance a shoulder fired missile had to go to hit the aircraft and the fact it did not hit a heat source such as an engine.
I personally felt that it had to have a bomb on board.
Sounds to me like you have your head buried in the sand. If you're such an expert, why do you get your information from the Discovery Channel? Please tell, Mr. Military Superior Explosives Expert Potentate, all about the PETN they found on the seat backs, and how it got there from a spontaneous center fuel tank explosion?
And the 270 interviewed witnesses (both civilian and military) saw exactly what when they claimed to see something streaking towards TWA800?
A 747 split in 2 climbs how many thousand feet even though the Boeing engineers say the engines throttle down when communication is lost?
What did the Clinton talking head George Stephanopoulos on ABC mean when he mentioned the downing of TWA800 (after Bush was elected)?
I am also very surprised that Boeing would use any sensor in a fuel tank that was not intrinsically safe. In my former job everything we placed in the Gravure press room was intrinsically safe because of the explosive nature of toluene. I guess Boeing engineers are not as smart as me! If they are installing electrical devices on planes that are not intrinsically safe NOBODY should fly.
It would also have fragment holes in it and there were none. Why wouldn't the missile strike an engine or a heat source? What is the range of a shoulder fired missile. What is the launch signature? Why did no one see the launch if there were so many witnesses?
You ought to do some reading on this before you make blatantly wrong statements on this subject. I will not address anymore of this nonsense. The rockets were going up at the time and as you point out a totally irrelevant example. I suggest you read Jack's other works past and future and go to the websites such as TWA800.com to read first hand the interviews and other evidence. Alas, why am I sure you will not.
This had alway been a bone of contention in that the radar track does not support the "Zoom climb" after the nose was first lost....
While the radar track does not show altitude, only ground speed and direction... you can deduce climb or dive from ground speed (straight ahead and level true ground speed ...90 degrees straight up or straight down = 0 ground speed... as you go in to a climb you see ground speed lose then a speed up and you come over the top )
.... TWA 800 radar track just show basically simple curve in loss of ground speed
All the rest of official story could be true... but the "Zoom climb" to explain the upwards light streak seen in the sky by the witnesses does not seen to be supported by the radar track
And the only reason the"Zoom climb" is in the official story IS to explain the upwards light streaks seen in the sky by the witnesses that others say was a missile(s)...
Add in the fact that the witnesses content they saw the light streaks go up first then the explosion fit a missile(s) hit before not a zoom climb after
And add in the fact that Bubba admin at the time seem to be motivate to "not want" any terrorist acts so he didn't have to confront it (it cost political capital and support to take any hard stand, ask Bush)...so if you could explain it away as something else... do it
So yes I have strong doubts on this one
I'm sure you're quite knowledgeable on the subject. However, that doesn't preclude you from also being quite wrong.
PETN is not a missile fuel, it is an explosive. It is usually a part of an explosive train. The main use is in Det Chord.
The engines throttled down after they ran out of fuel, this happens quite a bit.
It may not have been a missile, rocket, seagull with gas, etc., but the government's description is full of holes. It does not pass the smell test on so many levels. That's the problem with governments that lie (they all do). Once your lied to you never trust them again.
OK folks you are right and I am wrong and explosives also blew down the WTC. There is plenty of documentation on that.
I saw that documentary as well; very straightforward and convincing. I don't believe this was a missile anymore than the planes that hit the towers were missiles with windows painted on them.
I didn't ask you what PETN is. I already know what it is. I asked you how it got there. A follow-up question would be why they destroyed the material after it was discovered, if not to cover up the real truth?
This is easy to prove or disprove but unfortunately we a dealing in a world of liars (government and business, not you).
According to the Boeing engineers, the engines will immediately go to idle RPMs and thrust when communications are severed. They are NOT like solid fuel rocket engines on the shuttle that once ignited continue to burn no matter what you try to do but I think you know that.
That is not what I wrote why are you trying to obfuscate?
Boeing's engineers claim (we both can believe or disbelieve them) that as soon as communications to their 747 engines are loss they immediately go to a default idle mode. They said this believe it or not.
What the best part of the investigation was how the investigators first ruled out what it could have been. What was interesting was that, at first they didn't believer the fuel tank exploded until they recreated the incident.
If the plane had not had waited as long as it did on the runway with the airconditioner below the fuel tank running, it would have never happened. There were several things that contributed to the explosion and had any of these not had occured it would have never happened. The main cause to the accident was just basically bad damn luck.
Those 2 channels are lib shills.
From here: THE DOWNING OF TWA FLIGHT 800 Exclusive: Jack Cashill argues new investigation of '96 event ne ^
Post Post 85
And as a Physics major I laffed my a$$ off at the discovery channel 'documentary'.
Jet Fuel is simply KEROSENE. Go to the corner gas station, buy a gallon, pour it into a bucket, and toss in a match and watch what DOESN'T happen (an explosion)- or better yet, Do what I do about 10 times per year- pour it over a pile of wood and ignite it to make a bonfire. Nice and safe.
That is why jet airplanes are not blowing up left and right.
Try the same thing with gasoline (very explosive) and you better hope your health insurance is up-to-date.
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.