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 ...
"Eyewitness Highlights - Selected Accounts from the 755 reports" twa800.com/witnesscd/eyewitnesshighlights.htm
My comments aren't helpful to either the CIA or the conspiracy theorists.
ROTFLMAO
How about if it was in a burning airplane.
I don't need to be convinced or swayed, I knew it was a missile(2) when I saw the assinined" CIA "debunking" attempt.
The military claimed no assets in the area...that was a lie.
The CIA and FBI are lying, I'm studying the recent released (partial) "data" the CIA/FBI used to fake the witness cartoon.
The data they used (or faked) shows the 747 climbing 2000ft in 9.4 seconds at 420mph for a climb rate of 12,000fpm!
Ask Rokke how many airliners are able to perform those specs with the nose intact????
http://raylahr.entryhost.com/ciadoc.pdf
(page 16, get ready for chuckle)
The question was not direction but if you could tell the difference. Try it and and see.
And OJ couldn't have been guilty. Fell back over and ROTFLMAO.
(you must be a sick pup)
(go to the released CIA "data" I linked, now THAT is funny)
What ever you say.
Right.
I've always thought it was terrorists. We had been "hit" several times by them including in 93 at the WTC. I figured they had claimed no military in the area because the terrorists got away. Who'd want to admit that with our military near the scene?
You can't speak for Boeing and make their statement say what you'd like it to. It is what it is.
And our conversation is taking us nowhere. You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. I know when to quit a futile effort so I'll bid you a good evening.
I notice that you've posted about ten challenges to me to post data (including radar data) from the NTSB report. Earlier in this thread, I said the following..." I don't lie. I don't have to. My points are based on the truth.". Also earlier in this thread you said you had..."Downloaded all the NTSB report, and poured over it exhaustively for 5 years." The NTSB report was released and published in August of 2000. That was six years ago. But despite that "exhaustive" study, you missed all of the following....
Pages 87 -100 of the abstract including 8 illustrations of radar data. NTSB TWA 800 Report
A 16 page trajectory analysis describing the physics and math involved in analyzing the flightpath of the pieces and the actual aircraft as it broke apart. Trajectory Study
A 22 page Main Wreckage Flightpath study filled with 31 figures comparing radar data with computed predictions based on data provided by Boeing. Main Wreckage Flightpath Study
And an 18 page addendum to the flightpath study with even more detailed analysis of radar data and flightpath computations. Addendum 1
69 pages loaded with all the info you claim doesn't exist in the report. Now either you lied, and never read the report, or your "exhaustive" five year study was hampered by a severe case of illiteracy. I don't know which one it is, and at this point, I don't really care. I know your history on this site (and it didn't start yesterday like your current sign up date shows), and I know why you were booted in the past. Your increasingly desperate posts indicate you are well on your way to your past fate. You have a chance here to engage in honest debate. Instead, you continue to make up "facts", edit or create comments from me, and refuse to answer direct questions posed to you. You accuse me of being unpatriotic, a Clinton crony, and a Clinton defender. And now, you are saying the United States military is responsible for the end of TWA 800.
Maybe it's time to change your tune, and attempt to engage in an honest discussion instead of walking your way back off this site. I don't care either way. Your contributions have been worthless so far, so I'm not sure you have much else to add.
What is your source for your statement: "that huge fireball exploded no higher (and quite possibly much lower) than about 7500 feet." I just read some stuff that says the CIA animation has the last recorded altitude at 13,800 before the sudden (impossible) huge climb. I just read an eyewitness account from two airline pilots who saw the whole thing who initially radioed in to ATC that the huge fireball explosion occurred "around 16,000 feet". So what's your source for 7,500 feet. That number appears to be a statistical anomaly in TWA 800 literature.
No, the fuel tank in the Iranian 747 needed an outside source to ignite the explosion. It got it when the lightening struck, although further analysis also showed electrical arcing in a fuel pump.
"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."
Which is most likely what happened on the aircraft.
"Nice try but the NTSB reports totally discount eyewitness reports and relies on a supposed theory or "scenario" to reach their conclusion."
Absolutely false. The NTSB report includes a long and detailed analysis of eyewitness reports, and how they fit into the investigation.
"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. "
That is absolute BS. Exactly 38 witness of over 700 described an object (streak of light) rising from the horizon. If you can't debate this honestly, using facts, your comments have no merit.
"From 11 miles away and at an altitude of 13,700 feet?"
From 11 miles away, an aircraft at 13,700 feet is just 13 degrees above the horizon. Did the few witnesses who described "a streak of light" rising from the surface describe it as rising just 13 degrees above 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"
At least you put "experts" in quotes. And they've hardly been met with a deaf ear. The NTSB is still fielding and responding to questions regarding TWA 800. But they do not have a requirement to respond to the conspiracy nonsense that continues to float their way.
What's your source for the number of witnesses (38) who saw an object rising from the horizon and striking the aircraft? That number appears to be low based on the material I've read.
The Clinton Administration did that. It tried to steer the investigation toward it being a criminal event. Despite millions of dollars and two years of investigations, the FBI just couldn't pull it off.
"Nobody posting here is making any money selling "conspiracy theories."
That is probably true. But every time you click on one of the conspiracy sites that keep getting linked in this thread, the site owner gets to log a counter and more money from its advertisers. This thread alone has probably funding WND for another year.
"We're seeking the truth and exposure of the cover-up."
IF that were true, more people would actually read the whole NTSB report. And they would keep repeating inaccurate info.
Considering the people who are questioning the NTSB's conclusions and the qualifications of those people, including many current and former airline pilots and aerospace engineers, why do you refer to their questions as "conspiracy nonsense"? You have a real dismissive, overconfident way of commenting on very well-reasoned questions that are coming from many groups on this issue. So why are you so sure of the NTSB report, which is only one theory for the cause of this accident? I don't rule out any theory at this time, including the fuel tank explosion theory. But an analysis of all the evidence leads me to conclude that a missile shootdown is the more likely cause of this crash.
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.