The Discovery or History channel did a special on this one night and went through the investigation. Based on what I saw, I believe this.
The aircraft set on the ground with the air conditioner running and heated up the fuel tank directly above it and created fuel vapors. After the aircraft took off, stray electricity got into a fuel sensor that created a spark. The fuel tank exploded and did major structual damage to the aircraft. It broke into and crashed. The black box had a missing part of data that came when sometype of shortage was created in the electrical system. This happened at the same time of the explosion.
The findings are correct.
How do you account for the large number of eye witnesses that say something bright going up before the 'boom'?
Why did the FBI conduct the investigation, instead of the NTSB? Why were none of the witnesses, including several who are experts in the field of military ordinance, not allowed to testify in the congressional hearing about the missile they saw impact the plane? Why were the Sanders arrested? Why was there no mention of the PETN they found on the airplane seats? Have you seen the video clip of the FBI agent walking through the reconstruction scene saying, "This was no accident. Terrorists shot this plane down with a missile."? Keep drinking that kool-aide if you believe the Clintons' version of events.
Flight 800, "by the numbers":
10 - Come July 17, the number of years this crime has gone unsolved.
270 - The number of eyewitnesses that the FBI admitted saw what appeared to be ascending streaks of light.
34 - The number of eyewitnesses interviewed by analysts from the Defense Intelligence Agency's Missile and Space Intelligence Center whose descriptions "were very consistent with the characteristics of the flight of [surface to air] missiles."
1 - The number of eyewitnesses the New York Times interviewed.
0 - The number of eyewitnesses that the New York Times interviewed who had seen an ascending streak.
1 - The number of witnesses, according to the CIA, who saw the crippled and ascending TWA 800 that merely looked like a missile ("the man on the bridge").
1 - The number of interviews the CIA fully fabricated ("the man on the bridge").
3,200 - The number of feet the CIA claimed the noseless plane climbed.
1,700 - The number of feet the NTSB claimed the noseless plane climbed.
750 - Of the roughly 750 total FBI eyewitnesses the number who did not see the noseless plane climb at all, including other airline pilots.
12 - "Or less." The number of total eyewitnesses that, a year later, the New York Times was reporting had seen the crash.
0 - The number of Freedom of Information Act requests to which the NTSB has responded to show its climb calculations.
0 - The number of ships or subs the Navy claimed were within 185 miles of the disaster.
4 - The number of Navy ships or subs the FBI, in its final report, admitted were in "the immediate vicinity" of the disaster.....
Want more? Read here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33567
One of the great things about Free Republic....whatever the subject, there are Freepers with expert knowledge.
Thats Hogwash! The truth is coming out and Jack and others are doing a great Service to Our Country in pursuing this.
No plane has ever climbed 3000 ft after loosing its entire nose.radar painted it falling after the explosions.
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.
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.
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.
...and it only ever happened once? I was in military aviation, and I just don't buy it. Even the 737 rudder actuator problem happened multiple times, and that was an equally unlikely event.
I don't have much time right now to respond individually to some of the posts on this thread, but I will later. Although you have basically wrapped the whole thing up already.
I find your acceptance of the government's determination as to the cause shows a lack of logical and rational thought. You don't happen to work for the feds, do you?
I knew the whole thing was a leftist lick-fest to somehow blame Newt Gingrich and smartly departed for a glass of bourbon on ice with a cute little honey-pie I met there...
Stray Electricity......
There is no such thing. Electricity doesn't just run around looking for wires to jump into.
Electrical potential + Conductive path = Current flow
After millions of dollars investigating, the FBI and NTSB still does not have the source of the Electrical Potential. It did NOT appear out of thin air.
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!
And you voted for Clinton both times.
It figures.
Ha! Based on a Discovery Channel (or History Channel, you can't quite remember), you offer the conclusion: "The findings are correct" and then ridicule others for needing more education. I haven't read the whole thread, but have they "educated" you on the numerous admissions by politicians with the higher security clearances that it was in fact a terrorist attack?
"The findings are correct."
No way.
Their finding are absolute Bull$4it.
The CIA video animation showing Flight 800 flying AT ALL without the entire front section of the plane was proof alone that the cover-up existed. Because of this cover-up, we won't know what actually happened. But when the center of pressure is suddenly ahead of the center of gravity, as was the 747 after the explosion(s), the plane would have instantly tumbled and disintegrated.
ABSOLUTELY NO WAY - IT IS IMPOSSIBLE BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS - that it could have flown at all.
Forget the claim that it flew downrange 17000 feet and climbed 3000 feet with the entire forward fuselage missing.
800 was blown up by a missile.
Could be one of our own, could be a terrorist one.
Slam dunk. Over and out.
Berger, Cohen, Albright, Reno, Clinton.
Enemies of America, Enemies of Freedom.
I don't know whether the findings are correct or not, but can you explain how in the (up to then) 30 year history of the 747, this was the only plane that happened to? I find it impossible to believe that these conditions were never present in any of the millions of 747 takeoffs during that period of time.