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'm waiting now to see your link to the radar graphic.
Aren't you making a 'straw man' assumption that if a missile exploded, it was outside the aircraft?
Kind of like killing someone at close range with a shotgun blast. There are thousands of pieces of easily identifiable shrapnel from the weapon itself that leave thousands of easily identifiable holes all over the target they strike. Those holes usually contain microscopic or larger traces of whatever made them.
And if it exploded inside? -- Say inside the center fuel tank?
But in the case of TWA 800, what you have is a body that's been badly mangled but reconstructed until it is 95% whole. There is no evidence of anything resembling a shotgun blast to that body,
Which only rules out an external explosion, correct?
but a group of people who have no experience with shotguns or their effects on the human body, want to claim the body was killed by a shotgun.
Another 'straw man' type argument. You claim an external explosion, not me.
No one is disputing that a shotgun can kill people. But it simply can't without leaving a trace of evidence.
True enough. there is still an entrance wound, even if the the shot charge hasn't expanded to "thousands" of fragments.
The same is true, in my opinion of the video that you and others believe they saw. A video like that is something that couldn't disappear without a trace or even a mention in the MSM.
It was mentioned a ~lot~ outside the MSM, -- on the web & radio, if memory serves.
You believe you watched it, and I believe that is what you believe.
Big of you. - I believe you sincerely believe the government version of events.
- Isn't it nice that we patronize one another? Kumbya.
And if that is true, so did millions and millions of people up and down the East Coast.
Millions? - Hype. -- The tape was shown briefly, late at night on one network feed, as I recall. I'd guess that thousands saw it, not millions.
That includes competing media outlets all up and down the East Coast. Yet, the only mention anyone can find about such a video is an article by one of the leading TWA 800 conspiracy theorists in the world, who claims the video was never shown on television. So those of us who never saw the video are left with a choice of options.
Yep, you can believe that thousands of TV viewers, and hundreds of eyewitnesses spontaneously dreamed up a streak of light rising from the horizon before the explosion.
We can believe the TWA 800 "Zapruder Film" [telling derisionary comment] marks the first time in history, that every media source successfully conspired together to hide and deny evidence so startling people like you can never forget it, or we can believe that maybe the video wasn't quite what you remember it as.
And, we who can't believe our lying eyes can believe you folks insincerely pander to the government version of events in order to be politically correct.
- Isn't it nice that we patronize one another? Kumbya.
Regardless, folks like tpaine recall it strongly enough to remember where the camera was positioned with respect to the guests at the party. And that it was a stationary camera. And he says it did not show a streak of light hitting TWA 800. It didn't even show TWA 800. It showed a streak of light followed by a large flash.
Yep, that's what I, and thousands of others saw on the tape. And its corroborated by hundreds of eyewitnesses.
TWA 800 did not explode into a fireball until 41 seconds after the initial event that caused its demise.
Does this mean there was no 'large flash' from the "initial event", the supposed fuel tank explosion?
So unless the video ran for the length of time a missile would be in flight (around 15 seconds)
Well, at least you're finally admitting the time line for the tape is possible.
plus the 41 seconds from the first event until the fireball, then there is no telling what the video was of.
The tape ended with the initial large flash and people running to the rail pointing above.
Do you recall if there was a time and date stamp on the video?
None that I saw.
And finally, the link you provided regarding the witness study is an article based entirely on evidenced provided by the NTSB in its accident report. Have you read the report? It might save you a lot of internet search time. It is very comprehensive.
The Warren Report was also a very "comprehensive" refutation of what our lying eyes saw in the Zapruder Film.. Thanks for bringing up the subject of government report credibility.
Faret said he and a co-pilot were about 11 miles from Flight 800, flying at 8,500 feet, about a thousand feet higher than the doomed passenger jet. It went "straight down, like a rock," he said.
No evidence of terrorism in TWA crash, U.S. officials say July 18, 1996 Web posted at: 2:30 p.m. EDT
Are you STILL arguing the NTSB didn't know about them?
Not according to the Federal Judge and jury who convicted him. Were they part of the conspiracy?
"dual-thrust (boost/sustain) solid-fueled rocket motors burn out? I thought that's what the "sustain" part of the motor was for"
Yes. Do you think they burn forever? The boost launches them from the tube. The sustain accelerates them. Both burn out within seconds of launch.
"Are you now saying that a rocket wouldn't leave any kind of chemical "footprint"? "
Most likely an explosive footprint if the warhead exploded. But not "a trail of rocket fuel".
"Didn't use the link in the post again"
Yeah. I've read them all. Several times because you keep posting the same ones. I asked you a specific question. And it is not at all clear the witness video ever existed. And your info on the FOIA issue is completely wrong. That is why the case against the FBI was thrown out.
"Boeing tried fighting."
So Boeing lied in its final report?
"He had a legal right to have evidence checked by a lab."
He had no legal right to remove any evidence from the investigation site and was found guilty of a felony for doing so.
"When sued, there is a response."
So I guess every time the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, they have decided for the Plaintiff.
"Give me links where independant pilots and engineers agree with the suggested scenario by the FBI/ CIA/NTSB.
Here you go...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1653709/posts
The Iranian 747 needed an outside source to ignite the explosion. There was no lightning in the area of Flight 800. NTSB tests on the center-fuel tank required boosting the power of the spark beyond the capacity of the wiring in the center fuel tank.
"I prefer fact over fantasy."
Nice try but the NTSB reports totally discount eyewitness reports and relies on a supposed theory or "scenario" to reach their conclusion. Metallurgy specialist for the NTSB, James F. Wildey wrote in summary of his own report:
"The Group strove to fit a proposed scenario to all relevant observations in a given area. In some cases, there was more than one identified possibility for a particular feature. In some cases, the Group had to accept that some feature(s) either could not be explained by the proposed scenario or might even be in conflict with the proposed scenario."
He also noted that his conclusions presented an apparent conflict with the evidence and that additional evidence was not explained.
The determining factor for me on the problem with the post explosion climb theory from a layman's view is that the supposed "climb" originated at 13.7K feet in the air and 11 miles from the nearest land-based eyewitness. Virtually all of the eyewitnesses described two objects. The plane being one and a glowing object rising "from the horizon" where it met the plane resulting in the ensuing fireball. The NTSB says the origin of the "streak" was at the position in the sky of the plane. The difference between a 2200 foot climb and a 13 thousand foot climb is huge at 11 miles. From 11 miles away and at an altitude of 13,700 feet? Nobody...again, NOBODY would ever mistake the actual position of the plane for the horizon.
Also due to the fact that numerous "experts" in various fields have all come forward questioning the results of the NTSB Report and they have all been met with deaf ears, I suspect that your canned response to most questions is "read the report" and your unwillingness to accept any facts contrary to the NTSB report suggests that you might have more than just a passing interest in the subject.
The fuel system of an E-4B (747-200) is nearly identical to the fuel system of a civilian 747-100 (TWA 800), with the exception of the CWT having more fuel capacity. (accomplished by using a dry bay in the CWT of the -100 to carry extra fuel)
Where did you get the quote that you attribute to me?
It's right there in all its glory with supporting radar data and how it was derived. You should try reading the report sometime instead of trying to refute something you've never read.
Again, the designer/manufactor said: bears a resemblance but, by the way, has to do with a configuration that is entirely different (than a commercial 747) under a different use. It would not have changed the outcome of the investigation.
This is actually funny since you wanted info from Boeing that SUPPORTS your POV, but discredit Boeing when it does not.
OK. I fully expect to be treated to another pity party about how everyone is being mean to you...BUT I HAVE NEVER EVER ARGUED AIRCRAFT ARE NOT VULNERABLE TO MANPAD ATTACKS. You are amazing.
"You're really stuck on 2003. Where in the report does it state a year when MANPADS could reach 15,000ft?"
You're right. I bet they took out Amelia Earhart too. Dates don't matter. Lack of evidence doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whatever theory your gross ignorance allows you to conjure. Good grief.
I have no idea how much residual few was in the tank. Based on the NTSB report, the aircraft sat on the runway, taxiway, or what ever longer than normal before take off. This allowed for build up of heat in the fuel tank due to the air conditioner running.
NTSB took a simular 747 and flew it under the same conditions and put temperature sensors in the tank. Their finds were that the fuel tank was still hot when it was at the same altitude and time from take off as TWA 800. As I have stated before, this was just part of a chain of events that contributed to the explosion. Had any of these chain of events been altered or absent, I am of the opinion there would have been no explosion. It was just bad luck.
"LOGIC" ??????? That was thrown out the window, long ago on this thread.
An "incredibly complex conspiracy" would not have been required to shoot down TWA 800 with a missile and then cover up the truth. It just takes heavy pressure from high-level people in the Clinton Administration to suppress key evidence and steer the investigation in a certain direction. Nobody posting here is making any money selling "conspiracy theories." We're seeking the truth and exposure of the cover-up.
"No matter how many facts can disprove the missile theory it will never be enough."
- Yup. This article has flushed out the conspiracy theorists from behind the grassy knoll.
I did originally go in the 12th, but then shortly thereafter go active. The 12th was disbanded many years ago.
You have got to be putting me on??
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.