CNN Program on Fuel Tank explosions - MORE PROPAGANDA TO CEMENT THE REASON TWA 800 CRASHED

CNN TV now ^ | Today now | CNN

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Called "No Survivors"

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Again, President Bush’s job is NOT to go after the crimes of the previous administration. You cannot give an example of this ever occurring in the history of this nation.....because it hasn’t happened. President Bush is NOT the issue and I am sure you know it. Enough said.

[mgstarr]

You’re right, GWB’s job is to remain mum about previous treasonous acts. Yup, got it.

I’m sure the Illuminati figure into this somehow.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

What in the world does the illuminati have to do with TWA800? get a grip.

[mgstarr]

What in the world does the illuminati have to do with TWA800?

Just part of the conspiracy.

So just to be clear, GWB doesn't know about this?

The truth is out there...

[Techster]

Got any idea what happened to the FAA radar tapes that disappeared within days of the event? Inquiring minds want to know? What did the tapes show? And has the video that some have reportedly seen ever been located?

[deadmenvote]

bttt

[Wolfie]

Y’all sound like those 9/11 conspiracy kooks.

[Wolfie]

Y’all sound like those 9/11 conspiracy kooks.

[Techster]

No conspiracy, just looking for answers to puzzling questions?

[Mr. K]

Also, most people are not aware that aircraft jet fuel is just KEROSENE.

Go to the store, buy some, build a wood pile, douse it with a gallon of kerosene, toss a match on it and watch how it DOESN”T explode.

Don’t do that with gasoline unless you enjoy a huge fireball and missing eyebrows.

Gasoline is explosive, kerosene is not. And don’t get me started about the ‘mythbusters’ episode... BS

[oldironsides]

Maybe a little something aimed at airport security would have been helpful? One has to believe he was not a Muslim jihadist and just an everyday mental case. Is there a difference when a muslim takes down an entire commercial airliner and someone diving off a building by himself? You bet there is. Maybe I would believe the story about one poor Muslim nut case had it not been for so many of his kind using airliners to murder others.

[Hal1950]

Most believe that TWA 800 exploded in a huge fireball at 13,800 feet. However, that huge fireball explosion took place below 7,500 feet - perhaps as low as 5,000 feet. One of FreeRepublic's most ardent missile shootdown conspiracy theorists, Swordmaker, puts that huge fireball explosion at about 7,000 feet

The key witnesses are Sven Faret & Ken Wendell who prepared their own detailed report. They were flying at about 8,500 feet and saw the huge fireball explode below that altitude, flew over to the smoke cloud it left and determined that the top of it was at 7,500 feet

The brief fiery streak, seized upon by the conspiracy theorists as a missile, appears to have been the ignition source of the huge fireball explosion as evidenced ty the fact that by then all of the wreckage had been falling for quite some time.

Additionally, ten expert metallurgists (four from NTSB, three from Boeing, two from FBI Laboratory, and one scientist consultant) determined from their own extensive examinations of the wreckage that there was no evidence that TWA 800 was the victim of a missile(s) shootdown.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

The New York Post, in its story of September 22, 1996, reported, Law-enforcement sources said the hardest evidence gathered so far overwhelmingly suggests a surface-to-air missile...

The FBI interviewed 154 "credible" witnesses -- including scientists, schoolteachers, Army personnel and business executives -- who described seeing a missile heading through the sky just before TWA 800 exploded.

"Some of these people are extremely, extremely credible," a top federal official said.

FBI technicians mapped the various paths -- points in the sky where the witnesses said they saw the rising "flare-like" object -- and determined that the "triangulated" convergence point was virtually where the jumbo jet initially exploded.

[Hal1950]

Faret & Wendell's personally prepared detailed report is evidence.

Nothing you provided in your reply is.

[Hal1950]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/4/124854.shtml
The evidence is very clear that the fuel tank did not explode when the plane was above 13,000 feet and lost its nose. A pilot who observed the accident from an altitude of 8,500 feet says that TWA 800 was a thousand feet below him when the fuel tank burst into flames, creating a trail of black smoke.

Who was the author of that NewsMax article? Reed Irvine of Accuracy In Media - another ardent supporter of the missile shootdown notion.

[Techster]

The TWA 800 fuel tank is an order of magnitude safer. Jet fuel, similar to kerosene, is much less like to “explode” than gasoline at less than one atmosphere of pressure.

[Perdogg]

Fyi...Tonight Saturday Sept 15th, 2007.

Coast-2-Coast Am ( 10pm PDT to 1am PDT)

In the first hour, Jack Cashill will give a follow up to his 9/8/07 interview about the connection between TWA Flight 800 and 9/11.

Affiliates

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/info/wheretolisten.html

I don’t endorse, or believe, any thing that is said. You are adults, you can listen and make up your own mind.

[300winmag]

Additionally, ten expert metallurgists (four from NTSB, three from Boeing, two from FBI Laboratory, and one scientist consultant) determined from their own extensive examinations of the wreckage that there was no evidence that TWA 800 was the victim of a missile(s) shootdown.

In addition, we now have evidence from Iraq of what happens to a commercial airline hit with a MANPAD. The result is wing damage near an engine. It's a critical hit, especially during landing, but all were able to land safely with skilled pilots at the controls.

None of these missiles, with their five-pound fragmentation warheads, hit a center tank at the wing root causing instantaneous catastrophic damage. TWA 800 was at 13,800 feet, at a non-critical point in its flight plan, doing an uneventful climb to its final assigned altitude.

[djf]

There was a case during I believe Gulf War I when an Iranian passenger jet over the Eastern Mediterranean was shot down accidentally by one of our platforms.

I have always been convinced that TWA800 was indeed an accident, and we were testing technologies to avoid that type of incident.

[Wil H]

If you believe a missile hit plane, back it up with scientific proof.

Do you mean like the Sanders who got persecuted and prosecuted by the government for doing so or do you mean like the 154 independent eye witnesses who saw it happen and whose testimony corroborates each other through triangulation?

Just wondering?

The New York Post, in its story of September 22, 1996, reported,

Law-enforcement sources said the hardest evidence gathered so far overwhelmingly suggests a surface-to-air missile...

The FBI interviewed 154 "credible" witnesses -- including scientists, schoolteachers, Army personnel and business executives -- who described seeing a missile heading through the sky just before TWA 800 exploded.

"Some of these people are extremely, extremely credible," a top federal official said.

FBI technicians mapped the various paths -- points in the sky where the witnesses said they saw the rising "flare-like" object -- and determined that the "triangulated" convergence point was virtually where the jumbo jet initially exploded.

The New York Times, on July 19th, 1996, reported,

" [ Witnesses reported ] a "streak of light" hitting the plane just before it blew up."

And perhaps most tellingly, from the Associated Press, on September 23, 1996,

"...a source...said on condition of anonymity.... ``There's metal bent in, metal bent out. Metal you can't tell. I see a hole going in and a hole going out..."

Or should we go with the fuel tank explosion theory that they tried to recreate at test site near Bristol, England but were unable to successfully do so until they forced the parameters to such ridiculous extremes that it bore no resemblance to the actual accident scenario?