31 posts in this topic

A handful of aviation experts, including a number of investigators who were part of the original probe of TWA Flight 800, have come forward in a new documentary to say evidence points to a missile as the cause of the crash off the coast of Long Island 17 years ago.

The New York-to-Paris flight crashed July 17, 1996, just minutes after takeoff from JFK Airport, killing all 230 people aboard. In the weeks that followed, the plane was reassembled in a hangar from parts retrieved from the sea. But the cause of the crash was not identified immediately, and after authorities said the crash was caused by static electricity ignited fuel fumes, many skeptics cast doubt on the theory. Adding to the controversy were multiple eyewitness accounts of a fireball going up from the ground and hitting the plane before it went down, accounts which the FBI dismissed at the time.

The half-dozen investigators whose charges will be fleshed out in a documentary set to air July 17 - the anniversary of the crash - say they were never allowed to get at the truth. But they are confident a missile brought down the plane.

"We don't know who fired the missile," said Jim Speer, an accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association, one of a half-dozen experts seeking a new review of the probe. "But we have a lot more confidence that it was a missile."

The group is comprised of people who worked for the National Transportation Safety Board, TWA and the Airline Pilots Association, all of whom have since retired. All six say that the evidence shows the plane was brought down by a projectile traveling at a high speed.

?It all fits like a glove,? said Tom Stalcup, a physicist who is considered one of the foremost independent researchers and participated in the documentary, said during a press conference on Wednesday. ?It is what it is and all the evidence is there.?

Hank Hughes, a retired senior accident investigator for NTSB, said probers were not allowed to seek answers once the FBI took over the crime scene. "We just want to see the truth come out," Hughes said. "We don't have hidden agendas. The only thing we are looking for is the truth."

Speer, who says he found explosive residue on a part from the right wing which also had three holes, agreed.

?It?s obvious that the truth was not allowed to be pursued," said Speer. ?A majority of people working in that hanger did not feel as if the evidence was properly being handled.?

more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty well known around here that it was a missle, fired by the Navy - supposedly a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't blame anyone but Slick Willy if there was a coverup on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if this was something deliberate, or some Navy guy goofing around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

coverup therefore conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People will still find excuses .. seriously who do you think has access to a missile within the US ?

 

Can only be the Military or the Navy. Or some black ops group.

 

Suggesting that it could be a mistake is even more ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tinhats rejoice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tinhats rejoice!

Yeah sure ...it's so fun that the FBI coverup the death of more than 200 passengers :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dozens of witness along the shore saw a light rise up from the ocean, then the plane exploded.

 

Adding to the oddness was how the CIA played the front man for the story explaining why it couldn't have been a missile, even so far as to create a CGI video reenactment (which said "CIA Reenactment" in the corner) for CNN and the media. It wasn't the TSA or the FBI, it was the CIA doing the explaining almost the whole time.

 

A lot of aviation experts came forward at the time to say the "fuel explosion" theory was very improbable. I've always thought that it was likely a missile.

 

Edit: -> I got curious and was surprised to find the CIA animation right from CNN.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roCjDRgewLw

Edited by thomastmc
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't you guys know? It was a false flag and no one was even on board! Obama set it all up. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^but obama was noname in 1996 ...

even the tin hats folks wont make such absurdly baseless claim

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the Stingers we gave Afghan fighters it could also have been launched from a private ship that AQ appropriated. Could also have been captured Russian hardware.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been saying it since that horrifying day

I personally would like to know one way or the other,

(not that I don't believe the official report, I also saw a smoke trail intercepting the plane on tv)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty well known around here that it was a missle, fired by the Navy - supposedly a mistake.

 

 

A very good reason for a coverup. Friendly fire is the worse kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of all the conspiracy theories out there (which most are simply ridiculous and i am totally against!), this one is one where I can see some doubts about either or of the two possible scenarios.  The "official" statement about how the crash happened, and why some people seems to think they saw a trail of light going up (shown in the video), totally makes sense, and I could understand how it might look like something else, such as a missile, however, the fact that some of these investigators are coming forth with their doubts does raise a concern of a cover up (if there was any), although I always feel like this people get soo caught up on trying to make a theory work that they forget or ignore other facts.

 

usually, the simplest explanations/reasons are the correct ones. (keep in mind, usually, not always).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aviation enthusiast TWA 800 has always fascinated me, it certainly was a very unusual accident. I'm not sure I believe the conspiracy theories but if an attempt is being made to get at the truth it wins my support. The relatives of the victims deserve a straight answer once and for all.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 years is a strange number. I wonder if this is to get the conspiracy theorists talking about TWA flight 800 instead of the NSA?

 

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a person who has lived on long island my entire life there are no navy bases around here. So where would the missle come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a person who has lived on long island my entire life there are no navy bases around here. So where would the missle come from?

The Navy has 16-17 facilities from S. Carolina to Maine. Not all are bases, but the seas off Long Island is within their range of operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe it was probably a missile.

 

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I think 99% of all conspiracy theories are crack pot, but still, conspiracies and cover ups do happen and one has to keep an open mind. Just because something is a conspiracy or a cover up doesn't make it automatically a nutty idea. Just because the crack pots latch on to a conspiracy or cover up also doesn't mean that it's automatically a nutty idea, as they latch on to every suspicious situation (as well as situations which aren't even suspicious).

 

The Navy has 16-17 facilities from S. Carolina to Maine. Not all are bases, but the seas off Long Island is within their range of operations.

 

A friendly fire incident is extremely possible, and would more easily explain why a cover up took place (if one did). There are several documented incidents of missile misfirings aboard naval vessels. It would be interesting to know how many missiles have ever been accidentally launched (at peacetime when the vessel was not in battle) from an American Navy vessel, but I'd assume that data isn't public. There are quite a lot of military naval vessels out there, and they're carrying a whole lot of missiles total around the world. If it was friendly fire, I don't believe at all that it was intentional (by the way).

 

However, my money would be on Al Qaeda as the actor. I don't have a real good argument as to why, so I could easily be wrong, but it does seem more likely to me in a scenario where (given the data) either incident could be pretty much just as likely. Al Qaeda definitely had the means, the intent, and going after airlines was/is often their modus operandi, such as 9/11 and the shoe bomber. It just seems more probable to me that it was intentionally done, rather than a coincidence of an accidental firing close to a airliner.

 

Edit -> I meant to quote @majortom1981 also, but quotes are buggy still and it wouldn't have shown the name or notified the quoted person :(

Edited by thomastmc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An appropriated MANPADS (Stinger, SA-16/18 etc) launched from nearly anything that floats could do the trick. Flight paths are fairly regular and no one would notice boats in the area - the waters there are full of 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a person who has lived on long island my entire life there are no navy bases around here. So where would the missle come from?

 

 

The Navy (ours or another country's) can sail a ship just about anywhere.

 

And witnesses claim something flew up from the sea.

 

There are also portable missiles that can be launched from land.

 

Commander

Navy Region Northeast

Groton, CT 06349-5100

 

Commanding Officer

Naval Station Newport

690 Peary Street

Newport, RI 02841-1522

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After flight 800 was shot down the FBI followed up on the friendly fire theory and found out that all explosive ordinance was accounted for which makes the theory that it was friendly fire less persuasive to me. I just don't buy that a coverup that big could have been instigated for 17 years, if nothing else recent events suggest the US government simply isn't smart enough to pull it off. And if it were a terrorist missile there would have been no reason to cover it up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree re: friendly fire. Weapons inventories are tracked multiple ways, especially missiles, so a missing one would be obvious and as you say secrets like that largely aren't kept long. Some crewman would have blown the whistle by now.

OTOH, a Stinger or Russian SA-16/18 left over from some third world rathole getting smuggled into the shipping lanes? I can see that happening.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was a missile, I think it was an accidental launch.

 

Terrorists would want to take credit and get publicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.