Silenced: Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice, Part 1 [10th Anniv. Warm-up]

WND ^ | June 4, 2001 | Jack Cashill

[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? ....

[Steve Van Doorn]

"So the first barge only contained missile damaged parts? Think about what you just said."

mostly yes. Some of the debris was transfered by most of it was kept in the other facility.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"Because it was the fuel tank exploding."

yes the fuel tank exploded after the missile hit the out side of the plane.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Another thing a fuel tank explosion by it self could not create debris to move at hyper velocities.

[GarySpFc]

Again, this is a common fallacy expressed by people who have never read the NTSB report.

The statement that the plane could not continue upward was made by two aeronautical engineers earlier in the thread.

[GarySpFc]

Let me state that I do see some problems with a MANPAD scenaro. However, in going through the various reports and testimony I am looking at "both sides" of the argument, and trying to make CERTAIN a missile could not have been the initial cause of the system failure. Simply because I keep returning to a missile does not mean I am stating that is the cause.

[GarySpFc]

"If the tank is empty or close to empty, and if it is vented wouldn't it be completely vapor free in a short time?"

No. The vents are not that big. Think about a steamed up bathroom. It has vents too, but remains steamed up until you open the door.

Apparently there is a difference of opinion on this point.

One panelist, Albert Mundo, was the flight engineer on TWA 800's previous flight from Athens to New York. Mundo testified that after this flight he performed the procedure to drain all fuel from the center tank, and he doubted if there could have been any fuel vapors, since it had also been ventilated. He finds the government story to be, quote, "highly improbable."

[GarySpFc]

Do they pay you well for posting this garbage? LMAO!

I know a couple of personal things about Rokke, which makes me certain he is sincere his beliefs as to what happened to TWA 800.

[GarySpFc]

The Congressional Research Service study was published in 2003. That was seven years after TWA 800 exploded. In the interim perhaps Congress has identified a missile that can reach 15,000 feet. The very latest versions of some of the Russian Manpads have an increased maximum ceiling. Those missiles didn't exist in 1996. But until the Congressional Research Service decides to tell us what missile they are talking about, we are left to do our own research. And so far, EVERYBODY has come up empty. Couple that with there being zero evidence of a missile strike on any of the wreckage recovered after the aircraft went down, and despite the fact that TWA 800 was taking off over water, the case is pretty weak that it was hit by a manpad missile.

You stated Singers can reach up to 10,000 feet, but Raytheon and other sites show 3800 meters, which is almost 12,500 feet. Apparently, there is a difference between what the missile is rated and what it will actually achieve. Granted that is not 13,700 feet. However, I want to determine how long TWA 800 was at 13,700 feet prior to the giant fireball. If I recall correctly they had been told to hold at that altitude due to traffic.

[U S Army EOD]

What kind of missile?

[U S Army EOD]

Measured by what?

[Rodent_in_NY]

It has been admitted that they were conducting exercises in the area at the time. That's common knowledge now.

[radialenginefan]

The pellets imbedded in some victims give as clue in regards to missile type. (And I'm assuming we aren't dealing with re-entering space junk, the initial object was seen traveling upward, nearly 90 degrees)

From http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/printthread.php?t=51961

Stalcup says, "One of the interesting points in the 'secret' report is that there were investigators complaining that they hadn't been given enough information about the wreckage," saying there was "little forensic documentation or guidance on large-body-aircraft missile engagements."

"According to Stalcup, "More than that, we have information that shows that 20 unusual .2-inch-diameter round pellets that were found in bodies were withheld from the NTSB but analyzed by the FBI and found to have been made of aluminum titanium matrix and other elements like zirconium, barium and cerium. These are pyrotechnics or incendiary devices, and the matrix structure of these objects is consistent with pellets used in antiaircraft missiles."

The FIRO chairman continues: "In fact, I found a quote in National Defense magazine that was referring to warheads that said 'pellets imbedded in titanium matrix' are used in antiaircraft warheads. The 'secret' [Brookhaven] report analysis concluded that the origin of the pellets is 'unknown' and that one of the pellets was submitted for identification because of its dissimilarity in appearance with TWA 800 debris. ...'"

[U S Army EOD]

I am sorry but I believe the NTSB report. It references nothing like that. I suggest you read it. Remember all the garbage that came out on the WTC on blogs. The NTSB does an excellent job of investigating and presenting the results their findings. They were able to recreate the chain of events that caused the crash in experiments.

[radialenginefan]

"If the tank is empty or close to empty, and if it is vented wouldn't it be completely vapor free in a short time?"

It definately wasn't "fresh" JetA, the small quantity having been distributed on the two car garage sized heated floor, heated and subjected to the extended "light fraction' liberating high altitude for a long period.

Aged fuel has a lower explosive potential, and the NTSB Evergreen test did not include the prolonged "aging" of the CFT "test charge".(above p.)

It would be utter speculation regarding just how much fuel was in 800's CFT. Was there turbulence. turns or trim adjustments in the flght profile while purging the CFT?

It was disturbing to me, this "show", NTSB's re-inventing the wheel in regard to fuel specification and tank design, this road was "well traveled" and the "show" seems to have designed to promote a certain outcome. (appeasment of the laymon)

[radialenginefan]

"It references nothing like that. I suggest you read it."

I suggest you come up to speed re the coroner, it's a very curious and overlooked aspect here, wouldn't you agree???

[radialenginefan]

Gets your ducks in a row fella, (ping Rokke?), cause your BS session with the Freeper community has ended.

[radialenginefan]

Fella, I have to drive to Louisville this morning, I'll check back in with you tommorow sometime....OK? Be safe and be well.

[Rokke]

"in other words your article proves my point that is, until we see cars blowing up on the highways under normal driving conditions this flight 800 story is a joke."

The Explosion Dynamics Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology does an excellent job answering all the frequently asked questions concerning Jet A and the differences between aircraft and automobile fuel tanks. Here's a link. I suggest you go there and read up.

Explosion Dynamics Laboratory

It does assume, however, that the person reading it is of average intelligence. Considering you don't seem to understand there are dramatic differences between aircraft and automobile fuel tanks, I'll reserve judgment on your ability to comprehend anything on the site.

[Rokke]

"Not true. The first barge of debris was taken to another facility which wasn't accessible to the investigators latter."

I would love to know your source for that tidbit.

[Rokke]

"Some of the debris was as big as my fist and traveling at hyper velocities."

Really? That sounds really interesting. Could you share where that info comes from as well.