TWA 800 an accident, say investigators.

Fox News/ AP ^ | 7/02/2013 | AP

[Carriage Hill]

Current and former federal officials who played key roles in the investigation of one of the nation's worst aviation disasters said Tuesday they stand by their conclusion that the explosion of TWA flight 800 was caused by overheated fuel tank vapors, and not a bomb or missile.

The officials spoke to reporters at a briefing on the National Transportation Safety Board's four-year investigation following the explosion and crash of the Boeing 747 off Long Island, N.Y., on July 17, 1996, killing all 230 people on board. The board took the usual step of organizing the briefing on an investigation that has been closed for years. That's in response to a new documentary film set to air this month on the 17th anniversary of the tragedy. The film says new evidence points to the often-discounted theory that a missile strike may have downed the jumbo jet.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/02/twa-800-accident-say-investigators/?test=latestnews#ixzz2XyoJDbTM

[0.E.O]

It is quite possible,even likely,that, NO,the reporters couldn’t walk around to the other side of the reconstructed plane because of physical barriers and security people stationed to prevent just that.

Then I guess it's lucky for them that when the missile warhead went off it sprayed all it's shrapnel in one direction, huh? I mean, what are the odds?

[wbill]

accident....

Accidentally shot down by an accidental missile that was accidentally launched and subsequently, accidentally covered up.

oops.

[wbill]

Yep. Truly, that is the dog that didn't bark. Look what happened to the 787s.....They might maybe possibly have a problem with a batttery, or not, so the whole fleet got grounded until it was sorted out.

If there was an issue, the 747s would have been grounded just from a liability / insurance perspective.

[0.E.O]

So there were 4 missiles?

[exPBRrat]

A shoe bomb...I’d bet my life on it.

[i_robot73]

I’ll make sure to put a copy of the report next to my ‘magic bullet’, OKC and WACO tomes.

[Carriage Hill]

LOL. Exactly.

[Carriage Hill]

Could have been, but from what I read, admittedly on the TWA800 website, some key structural pieces were bent *inward*, indicating the blast(s) came from outside the cabin. Just saying.

[Servant of the Cross]

Not necessarily. The second explosions (2 to 3 seconds later) could have been 'secondary' fuel explosions within the plane(s) themselves.

However, based upon this testimony by Major Fred Meyer (Ret), clearly there were two separate missles ... directed at two different planes?

[rockinqsranch]

I remember a discourse with such a person on the television, but NOT the actual interview. I cannot contribute to discussion on that as I don’t remember the testimony of the fishing boat rental operator.

I would believe the discussion would have contributed to my standing on the event as I don’t recall anything stated that night that did otherwise.

Eyewitnesses saw the streak of a missile heading up to, and then the explosion. What else could it have been?

Too many were told to not believe their lyin’ eyes.

[0.E.O]

Not necessarily. The second explosions (2 to 3 seconds later) could have been 'secondary' fuel explosions within the plane(s) themselves.

He was pretty specific in the interview. He said 'ordinance explosions' and not 'fuel explosions'. I think that a warhead detonation looks different than a fuel tank explosion and that with his experience he'd be able to tell the difference.

However, based upon this testimony by Major Fred Meyer (Ret), clearly there were two separate missles ... directed at two different planes?

Two to four. But none of the other eyewitnesses that I'm aware of has said they've seen anything other than one.

[hoosierham]

Shaped charges.

Armor-piercing ,for instance ,direct the blast in a narrow stream.

I still haven’t seen enough to decide if Navy error or terrorist act was the cause ,but I have seen enough to decide the government is lying.

And lying is something socialists do really often because to be a socialist you have to deny reality.

[diogenes ghost]

There are several problems with your post....

"None were grounded." Grounding of a fleet is quite rare. Normal proceedure, if a maintenance problem is suspected (and aging/frayed wiring would be an example) then an AD is issued requiring inspection/repair within a specified number of flight hours.

"No history of it happening previous." There most certainly was.

"Never happened since." While I am not aware of any, there may have been. However, there has been increased inspection, changed tanking proceedures, and in the case of new build, different design criteria.

"Although there have been wiring/electronic upgrades, none related to that incident."

Tank protection most certainly has been, and continues to be an issue, both on in-service and developmental aircraft. In fact Lockheed Martin is struggling with tank issues on the F-35, needing nitrogen purging as an interim measure until a fix is found. And this is acknowledged to be the most sophisticated aircraft ever built.

So, tanks can, have, and will blow up.

[diogenes ghost]

Please see my post # 73.

[0.E.O]

Shaped charges.

Armor-piercing ,for instance ,direct the blast in a narrow stream.

What SAM, either man portable or ship based, uses an armor piercing warhead or a shaped charge?

[Antoninus]

Even Stephy admitted it inadvertently:

The 'bombing' of TWA Flight 800

[hoosierham]

Haven’t the faintest.
But a terrorist would use whatever type missile he could acquire.I thought the TWA was relatively low in altitude .

Regardless,everything about how this investigation was handled stinks.

[Alberta's Child]

One thing I concluded a while back is the following:

IF TWA Flight 800 was brought down by a surface-to-air missile, it is highly unlikely that it was an act of terrorism.

There are two facts that weigh very heavily against a terrorist attack with a missile:

1. A terrorist who wanted to shoot down a passenger jet flying out of JFK Airport in New York City would not have positioned himself so far east of the airport, where an eastbound trans-Atlantic flight would have been at a very high altitude.

2. Flight 800 was actually flying through the area that evening at a somewhat lower altitude than normal. It had been instructed to reduce its altitude by several thousand feet in order to clear a flight path for a northbound flight to Providence, Rhode Island that was running behind schedule that night. A terrorist looking to shoot down a passenger jet could not have foreseen this when positioning himself to carry out the attack.

Interestingly, Item #2 is one of the things that lends some credence to the theory of an accidental shoot-down during a military exercise.

[Alberta's Child]

The “multiple missile” scenario supports a theory that the incident involved a surface-to-air missile that had been fired during a naval exercise to shoot down a drone of some kind. The contrails of the drone and the missile would probably be indistinguishable from a great distance.

[Alberta's Child]

See #79 for a possible explanation.