TWA Flight 800....?
 

Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts was on the Monday night edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews. He was ticking off a list of past terrorist attacks including the USS Cole, Oklahoma City, etc. and slipped in TWA flight 800. It may have been a slip of the tongue and Chris Matthews didn't call him on it. There is an ever-growing opinion that TWA 800 was shot down by a heat-seeking missle and that the U.S. government is aware that it is as plausable as a fuel tank explosion, but didn't want to alarm the flying public at the time. <BR> <BR>

Opinion is not FACT. Show me the hard evidence.

Check out the thread called "Could there be a connection?" I'll try to pull it up for you.

I have read that thread---STILL NO HARD EVIDENCE!!! Show me hard evidence you moron or shut the hell up!!!!

Evidence? It was blown up with the plane over the Atlantic ocean. Didn't you know?

This is the xxx who just topped the Connection thread. <BR> <BR>DoubtingThomas, if this idea bothers you, sonny, run along. Someone asked about it, and I am happy to provide the theory.

They have recovered most of the plane, they can tell from the recovered parts if indeed a bomb did go off. There has been no evidence to suggest this happened. <BR> <BR>You conspiracy therorists need to get a life and quit posting your inane tripe here!

xxx-YOU are a NUTCASE!!! GO GET SOME THERAPY! BTW, this is not a debate board for your silly ideas.....

Next you weirdos are going to say JFK Jr. plane crash was the work of terrorists....

<BR>GFY: YOU MEAN IT WASN'T???

Face it. We will never, ever know what brought TWA 800 down. Even the investigators disagreed about it at the time, and some wanted the final report to declare the cause as "unknown". There was resistance to this, because the NTSB almost always gets to the bottom of crashes, and I think there have only been a few major crashes where they had to admit they couldn't determine the cause. (One, I think, is a Pennsylvania crash where the plane just did a spectacular spiral dive right into the ground, and they have no idea to this day why the rudder froze in that postion). <BR> <BR>Just because they investigated TWA 800 thoroughly does not mean they found the true cause. Just because they declared a cause does not mean they identified the correct cause. <BR> <BR>If you don't want to even try to wrap your mind about these issues, no one is forcing you to, you know.

I don't think your a quack at all. I am not a real big conspiracy theorist at all but I have read everything I could get my hands on about TWA 800 due to the fact that I was on that same flight 6 weeks before the crash. They thought that an explosion occured inside the center fuel tank. HOWEVER, in test after test trying to simulate the exact thing they NEVER could get a spark going big enough to ignite the center fuel tank. There were some agents speaking off the record that there was some small trace residue on one of the seatbacks in the row nearest the center fuel tank. This was also refuted ON the record bye Halstrom. Not sure what the real story is. But it does make you wonder. <BR>Also I wonder what was the real story behind Egypt Air? Didn't the pilot go down screaming something about Allah? I know they said it was suicide and I don't doubt that at all. But I wonder if it wasn't for some larger reason?

Where the heck are the fuel tanks on a jet? Are they really under the passenger compartment? I always thought they were on the wings, in which case, I don't understand how there can be a center fuel tank. Does anyone know?

A valauabe resource to the TWA 800 issues, such as center fuel tanks, is at the NTSB website. Take a look a third report on likely causation. Just a thought: I haven't seen evidence to support the view there is any type of growing opinion poitning toward an errant missile theory. Secondly, what hard evidence did Pierre Salinger in France release to back up his claims that a Navy missile downed the plane? I don't recall his claims going very far. Ciao

Hmmmm-cars have gas tanks and some times they have explsosions. I wonder if there's not a connection? Hey, I have a moped w/ a gas tank! I wonder........

Check out references to the John Kerry remark at twa800.com.

Suggest accessing www.ntsb.gov, and click on major investigations. TWA FL 800 and EgyptAir FL 990 are there. The TWA 747 had a center wing fuel tank, not a center tank under the passenger compartment. NTSB concluded there was an ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in that tank, but was never able to conclusively identfy an ignition source. Theories about sources were offered by NTSB investigators. You might wish to revisit the final reports. Here in DC, BTW, NTSB has a pretty solid reputation for making independent judgments, letting the chips fall where they may. Ciao

I'm no paranoid but there is an oddity in TWA 800 that puzzles me. When the plane blew up, the front of the plane traveled at a higher rate of speed than it was traveling before the explosion. This was with an obviously open fuselage, a condition which should have slowed down the plane. For what it's worth.

Here is the alleged cause of the TWA 800 straight off the NTSB website abstract: <BR> <BR>"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the TWA flight 800 accident was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT), resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system." <BR> <BR>They admit they don't know why the fuel tank exploded. <BR>

Roger, why do you say the front of the plane traveled faster following the explosion? I never heard that before. <BR> <BR>L, if the NTSB doesn't know why the fuel tank exploded, then how can we rule out sabotage?

Dear Cindy, My source is an old newsletter that I have somewhere in my files. I am going to write myself a note to make a quick search when I get home and will let you know tomorrow.

As far as ruling anything out, as I said, NTSB never decided on ignition cause ... although they had some favorites. You're now read Hall's summary, and you see that for yourself. For the overall, however, I think somewhere in Logic 101 we must have discussed the idea of keeping in any possible notions simply because one may not rule in or out a specifc causation. We cannot rule a in thus we cannot rule b out. Terrorist? Errant missile? Empty tank issue? A/C pak issue? And there must be others. <BR> <BR>By the way, Roger, I believe NTSB did address the issue of the paths and speeds of various parts of the 747, although I do not recall what they said. I do seem to recall that some initial conclusions about that issue were changed later. Ciao

bu bu but what about the "grassy knoll"???? some of you people KILL me!!!

I'm surprised most of you people aren't at home salivating over the new(?) Star Trek series.

IMO, TWA 800 was an accident not a terrorist attack. 747 are OLD planes and any little itty bitty short etc. could have caused the catastrophic explosion that caused the plane to come down. Secondly, terrorists always claim responsibility and people in the MidEast and elsewhere always jump for joy when a terrorist act is committed. I never heard of anyone claiming responsibility and I never saw any anti-American, the plane deserved to be downed chants of glee anywhere.

The source of my information is an article by Ian Williams Goddard printed in an obscure newsletter called the Rothbard-Rockwell Report May, 1999. Goddard quotes from CIA video: "Just after the aircraft exploded it pitched up abruptly and climbed several thousand feet from its last reported altitude of about 13,800 feet to a maximum altitude of about 17,000 feet ... Flight 800 reached the peak of its ascent about 20 seconds after it exploded." More, in Goddard's words, "So the CIA says the truncated airframe flew upwards about 3,200 feet in 20 seconds, or 50 meters per second. The problem with that claim is that the 747 in question has a listed climb rate that is five times slower, at only 10 mps. When I asked veteran 747 pilot Captain Richard Russell about the maximum climb rate of an aerodynamically sound 747, he told me, 'If you let the speed build up to the barber pole (maximum operational speed) and then gave the maximum rapid back pressure on the yoke, you might get 4,000 fpm(20 mps), but only for a very short time-a few seconds. The kinetic energy would be dissipated very rapidly.'" And later in the article, Goddard notes that "... aeronautics engineer Edward Zehr has proven mathematically, around 5 seconds after the center-of-gravity shift resulting from the loss of Flight 800's forward section, the remaining airframe would stall and the force of lift would fall to zero." Further along, Goddard writes, "Air National Guard pilot and eyewitness Major Frederick Meyer said the CIA scenario 'isn't what happened', he also said it's a 'pure fabrication'" <BR> <BR>I don't know the reputations of Goddard, Zehr or Major Meyer. I'd like to know. However, the final explanation seems implausible. The explanation could not be recreated in laboratory. Something smells in the final governement explanation of why TWA 800 blew up. <BR> <BR>

Where in the terrorist handbook do you find the instruction that terrorists must always take credit publicly for acts of terror? For that matter, how do you know no one took credit for TWA 800 but the reports were deemed to be a matter of national security and thus not made public by our government? Indeed, if it is true that no one claimed responsibility, that in itself sounds funny, as you'd think a fringe group might do so just to boost its credentials in the terrorist world. <BR> <BR>Bin Laden never took credit for WTC, did he? Indeed, his spokesman initially denied his involvement.

What about the photo they showed? You know, the one where the people were having a party on a deck on Long Island and they happen to have the plane behind them with a long white flash racing towards it? I saw that picture on the news and I have no idea how any one can deny that it looks like it was hit with something.

Did a little research on this Goddard fellow. He seems to be more a free-lance journalist than a scientist. Though he is still highly critical of the government findings, he discounts a land-to-air missile.

Roger, that's a very intersteing description of what occurred with the increase in acceleration. Just for a moment we assume it is correct, and it is what occurred, please explain the significance. Specifically, does it suggest a missile ... a bomb ... or something other than a fuel tank explosion. I am asking because I would like to know what conclusions this analysis support. I do believe the NTSB addressed this facet, but do not recall what they said (I will check on this), as well as the picture that suggest an errant missile or other object streaking toward TWA. Thanks, and ciao

Though no expert myself, I have read that TWA 800 was too high in air for a surface-to-air. Not even close. My own humble opinion is that a small bomb blew up the plane and could not be detected due to it blowing up over water. It is amazing what the government was able to do to re-piece the plane but perfection can't be expected. I only wish they were honest enough to admit it.

I think it was an incendiary device attached to the fuel tank (or somehow placed inside it) due to sabotage. (I believe the plane took off at night, so maybe that's why no one saw the device?). That might explain the first flash of light people saw before the main explosion. <BR> <BR>I am at a loss to understand how anyone could accomplish this sabotage, but then again, WTC shows that a lot can be accomplished by someone who has resources and is determined. <BR> <BR>The only possible "cover-up" theory would be that one of our own military jets shot it down by mistake, but that's too outlandish even for me to accept.

FWIW I found this interesting article. <BR>I have to say I try and give the investigators the benefit of the doubt but I am open to the possiblity due to the fact that it wouldn't be that hard to hide from an american public that for the most part just goes with the flow and believes every single thing that comes out of the biased media and politicos of the world. Most of you that seem to questionit seem very thoughtful and contrary to some peoples opinions I doubt have ever been to Star Track the Experience at the Las Vegas Hilton. LOL I hate that show and can't believe they ever revived it. Here is the link. <BR>http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/articles/twa2.html

Yesteday, I took another look at some of the NTSB final report. Assuming NTSB is being truthful, they said some things that are pretty convincing for eliminating bomb or missile events. They recovered 95% of the plane and reassembled it. They said they found no "signatures' of explosion, and they described what that would look like. They also could not find an entry hole big enough to suggest a missile. However, there were photographs and eyewitness statements, including some military helicopter pilots, that reported seeing a streak and then a series of explosions. I was not able to locate anything definitive explaining away those sightings. I do not know where this leaves us ... except that NTSB has in effect setlled on what they consider the most likely occurrence and causation. I'm not NTSB expert ... so I do not know whether they ever reopen investigations, and what the procedure for doing so might be. I would much prefer to think NTSB would not guess or lie or cover up ... but this entire issue, now in the new context of the 11th, is preplexing. And needs to be reexamined within our new awareness. I'll defer to someone else on that question. I have no ideas about that whatsoever. Ciao