General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDocumentary aims to 'break silence' on crash of TWA Flight 800
(CNN) -- Skeptics who have long theorized that TWA Flight 800 was brought down by sinister forces will get a fresh surge of energy when a new documentary attempts to disprove that the 1996 crash was accidental.
The twist: It includes six members of the large accident investigation team who, publicists say, will "break their silence" on the cause of the explosion.
They will petition the National Transportation Safety Board to reopen its investigation some 17 years after the B-747 fell in pieces into the waters off of Long Island, New York.
They include Hank Hughes, who served as a senior accident investigator with the NTSB and helped reconstruct the aircraft following its destruction. Also included, Bob Young, a top TWA investigator who participated in the investigation, and Jim Speer, an accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association.
"These investigators were not allowed to speak to the public or refute any comments made by their superiors and/or NTSB and FBI officials about their work at the time of the official investigation," a news release announcing the documentary said.
"They waited until after retirement to reveal how the official conclusion by the (NTSB) was falsified and lay out their case."
</snip>
If true, then
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)It is very disturbing the way politics is played in America.
I follow the logic trail
And why would this conspiracy theory be talked about now?
If this is Tuesday, it must be Belgium, but it's not Tuesday, it's Wednesday.
cnn, the same station that in 1988 singlehandedly sabatoged Mike Dukakis and helped the Bush family win big time.
the more things change, the more things become clear.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I am very suspicious of the timing of this.
as I am sure many others will be too, as Gene Kelly used to say, It's all in the timing. But this isn't April in Paris.
Sounds like a good movie though.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I never believed that person ever told the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I felt like an Old Violin being played.
I smell a smear, after all, its been a few days since the last one.
and I know some others also are questioning the timing, and many others will be too.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)RobinA
(9,903 posts)explains the timing - it's the anniversary of the event.
Rhiannon12866
(206,601 posts)But this kind of leaves you hanging... Does anybody know? Either CNN didn't want to report a spoiler or they want us to see the film...
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)They claim the cause of the explosion was clearly external and that the NTSB lied!
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)"Parties to the investigation were the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); the
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group; Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA); the International
Association of Mechanists, Aerospace Workers, and Flight Attendants (IAM); the Air
Line Pilots Association (ALPA); the National Air Traffic Controllers Association; Pratt &
Whitney; Honeywell; and the Crane Company, Hydro-Aire, Inc.
Additionally, representatives from Frances Bureau Enquetes Accidents, the
United Kingdoms Air Accidents Investigation Branch, and Australias Bureau of Air
Safety Investigations participated in the investigation as observers, in accordance with the
provisions of Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. In addition,
representatives from Canadas Transportation Safety Board and International Civil
Aviation Organization, Singapores Civil Aviation Authority, and Russias Interstate
Aviation Committee observed portions of the investigation..."
Not to mention NTSB Chairman Jim Hall and the other four members of the board, Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh??
I mean, FFS...If there was some legit outside party to pin the blame on, Boeing would've been the FIRST to make that case, gag order or no...
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)These men were in a position to know.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and local media spoke about nearly 200 eyewitnesses who saw a "missle" heading towards the plane. Then they just stopped talking about it.
Logical
(22,457 posts)reports. The eye witnesses stories are all over the board.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)problems with eyewitness testimony. But when 200 people see the same thing...something streaking towards the plane, I have to stop and think.
RobinA
(9,903 posts)the same thing. Even if it had been a missle, you couldn't proved with the eyewitnesses, they were quite different.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)all these people are lying, knock yourself out.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/STATEMENTS.html
DinahMoeHum
(21,825 posts)n/t
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)Although I have not seen the July 17 video, I have heard from scores, if not hundreds, of credible people who swear they saw it on television in the first hours after the crash. Some have described it to me and other independent investigators in perfect detail.
MSNBC, launched just two days prior to the disaster, seemed to have won the bidding war for the rights to the July 17 video. I say "seemed" because my source will not speak on record, nor will MSNBC follow up on queries.
What I have been told, however, is that late on the night of the crash, editors at MSNBC had the tape on their monitors when "three men in suits" came to their editing suites, removed the tape, and threatened the editors with serious consequences if they ever revealed its contents.
An hour after this video aired on MSNBC, I saw a similar video on Fox. It was an actual jet liner explosion, but they explained how a fuel leak could appear to be a missile. How did Fox know just hours after the explosion and who supplied their video? It took the investigators four years to come to the same conclusion.
Logical
(22,457 posts)I am not sure I believe the missile theory.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)Those who have seen UFOs know this meme well. We are deluded, 'authoritative' voices are quick to explain to us and to anyone else who might have an interest in asking about what has been seen.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)for personal reasons - I was in Athens when it happened and was scheduled to return to JFK the next day on Flight 800 (the plane was going to Paris, then Rome, then Athens and then back to JFK). I'm not a good flyer on the best of days so I learned you can hold your breath for 10 hours when you're scared out of your mind. It was the only time we were delayed coming home (we go to Greece every summer) - that's what happens when you need a whole new plane. It was also the only flight that had no newspapers for obvious reasons, lots of press on both ends of the flight. So if it really were a mechanical problem with the center fuel tank, that could have just as easily happened on my flight the next day.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,947 posts)Because that's not a 747.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)FreeState
(10,585 posts)Both aircraft crashed into North Park, a San Diego neighborhood, killing all 135 on board the Boeing 727-214, the two men aboard the Cessna 172 Skyhawk, and seven people on the ground in houses, including two children. Nine others on the ground were injured and 22 homes were destroyed or damaged by the impact and the spreading of debris.
The PSA 182 accident caused the revision of air traffic rules applicable to the busiest airports across the U.S., with the intention of improving separation of aircraft operating in the vicinity of large airports.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Sightings. With everyone in the world armed with cameras now and cameras on street corners there is still not any better footage.
This TWA 800 stuff is like 1000 times more credible that any UFO syory.
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)The plane that went down in 1996 was a Boeing 747, which doesn't have a three engines at the rear of the aircraft, but rather, two engines on each wing.
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)Fox ran video that appeared to show a fuel leak streaming behind an airliner. The leak caught fire, the fire raced back to the aircraft, and the fuel tank exploded. The video had to have been shot from a plane chasing the airliner. I've never been able to find the video or anyone else who saw it, yet there had to be many. Has anyone else seen this clip? It was not an illustration, but an actual explosion.
premium
(3,731 posts)and I remember saying to my wife that it could easily be mistaken for a missile.
Upon closer inspection of the clip, there was no missile, just that stream of fuel on fire.
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)And Fox had a video already in hand.
premium
(3,731 posts)Fox actually got a news story right.
I remember that Pierre Salinger tried to make the case that a U.S. Navy warship had accidentally shot it down during training exercises, he was thoroughly debunked when the Navy proved that their ships were well beyond any SAM range that they carried at the time.
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)I don't know what happened, but I think it's pretty clear that there was a cover-up.
The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.
premium
(3,731 posts)but the FBI, CIA, FAA, and the NTSB did a pretty thorough investigation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800
Orrex
(63,261 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)First, let's redefine "skeptic":
"Skeptics who have long theorized that TWA Flight 800 was brought down by sinister forces..."
And then, let's make normal procedure sound odd:
"These investigators were not allowed to speak... at the time of the official investigation..."
Unlike normal investigations in which dozens of people are gathered together to shoot from the hip with reporters.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)In that hypothetical, do you think there would be any forces within the airline industry or within government that would have a motivation for that not to be reported?
And how hard would they be willing to work to make sure it wasn't reported as such?
(I really have very little patience for people whose best argument is "The government and press wouldn't lie, really, they just wouldn't." There is no excuse for anybody over age 8 automatically assuming what the authorities say is true. And I find it more than a little comical that now the story is there was a trail of vapors that ignited and caught up to the plane, like some fuse in a cheap Western movie. At the time, the government went to great expense to blow up a 747 on the ground to "prove" their theory -- but obviously such a test would have no connection whatsoever with this new theory that it was a trail of vapors.. Talk to any commercial pilot. They will tell you that planes are designed to dump their fuel in an emergency, and I don't believe there is any case on record anytime that supports the theory of a trail of fuel igniting. It disperses into the atmosphere so quickly, it couldn't possibly do that unless the ignition point were very very close to the plane -- and then it wouldn't be a trail of fuel, would it?)
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)1. The word "skeptic" is misused in the article.
2. Highlighting, as done in the OP, that individuals on an investigative team are not authorized to speak for the investigation is a cheap rhetorical device.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)because of the rhetorical twist. My point is that. regardless of the rhetoric, it appears these are serious issues. I never felt like the government explanation was satisfactory. For me, if they honestly found no evidence of foul play, It would be OK to say, "We can't determine any cause to a certainty. It seems to be a freak accident."
But government people don't believe most Americans would accept that. They would potentially freak out and in the process, destroy the airline industry. So they make up some double-talking nonsense and surround it with some fake trappings of science truthiness, and all rally behind that explanation. They they set the wolves out on anybody who questions them. That is how propaganda always works. it isn't complicated.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)"So they make up some double-talking nonsense and surround it with some fake trappings of science truthiness..."
To which portion of the NTSB report are you referring there?
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 19, 2013, 10:56 PM - Edit history (1)
If it makes a big boom, it must be scientific.
byeya
(2,842 posts)said they saw something propelled from the ground which struck the airplane.
Eyewitness testimony is often unreliable and the Transportation Dept recovered most of the plane and put it together and issued a report that faulty wiring caused the crash. There was a no-fly rule put on this model airliner until the wiring was rerouted within the plane.
I would welcome any addition information.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Think about a situation where a plane flies towards you from the horizon. It looks like the plane is going up as it approaches you. Even if the plane is actually decending.
byeya
(2,842 posts)were a couple of miles apart and reported the same thing but, like you say, the eyes can play tricks on you.
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)But these accounts were reported contemporaneously -- in the first 8 hours after the explosion. There wasn't time -- or any indication - that all these people huddled to get their story straight, yet many of them talked very specifically about a light heading toward the plane, as if it were a missile.
I would much sooner believe mass hysteria is responsible for that than some cockamamie explanation about a trail of fuel catching fire like a 20-mile-long fuse.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)The initial reports all seemed to agree it was a missile.
But I don't think it was terrorism. There were also naval exercises in the vicinity that afternoon. I've always believed it was a horrible accident.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Those exercises were actually quite a ways a way. About double the range of the Navy's anti-aircraft missiles.
So either a missile miraculously flew twice as far as it was supposed to, or it was not "a horrible accident".
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Radar images clearly showed a projectile moving toward the plane. People saw a missile-like object heading toward the plane.
So.... it was an electrical problem? Bzzzt. Try again.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:12 PM - Edit history (1)
I'm really interested to hear what you think is the simple answer for how the missile managed to do that.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...who are going to say that what they REALLY thought was suppressed by the NTSB. And those who ARE coming forth? They're not Alex Jones-wannabes... they're reputable aviation professionals who specialize in aviation accident investigation.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)Apparently, our government thinks we can't handle the truth.
The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.
B2G
(9,766 posts)going on that night.
premium
(3,731 posts)were quite a distance away, twice the distance of any SAM the Navy had at the time.
B2G
(9,766 posts)jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)Here's my question. If the faulty wiring and exploding fuel tank is a real failure mode, why haven't we seen this before? We've had several aircraft damaged or lost due to wake turbulence, for example. If the flaw is in one aircraft, it should be in others, even if it hasn't yet progressed to the point of destroying it. Metal fatigue, for example. Crappy wiring for batteries in the Dreamliner. Why is this the only time we've had an exploding tank take out a plane in flight like a bomb? Or are there incidents I'm not aware of?
I'm not a conspiracy nut but this struck me as odd.
premium
(3,731 posts)immediately grounded that model aircraft until the wiring was re-routed and other new safety rules were put in place.
jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)Wasn't following the case closely. Did they find evidence other aircraft were just as at risk?
Usually the engineers are aware of this sort of thing and are overruled by management as with major NASA screwups. Challenger, Columbia, no surprises there. Were there crusty old Boeing engineers screaming about how they knew this could happen?
I just find it such an unusual accident since most crashes occur near the ground for obvious reasons. You don't often see airliners drop from the sky or explode for no reason.
Pilotguy
(438 posts)The 747 was never grounded after this incident and it took years to "correct" the faulty wiring in the existing fleet of 747's.
premium
(3,731 posts)I mis-read the article on Wikipedia.
I, myself, don't believe it was a missile that brought Flight 800 down, the investigation was damn thorough and I'm tending to believe the FBI's and the NTSB's findings.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...they would've had to have ordered the grounding of the entire 747 series, which, of course, wouldn't have been economically feasible at the time.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)TWA 800 was an "original" 747-100, built in 1971 so there wasn't a whole lot of them still in regular service with domestic carriers by 1996...
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...changes were made to subsequent aircraft only AFTER TWA 800 went down.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)It was so strange, because Matthews acted like it was a known fact rather than a bombshell. I never heard it mentioned again after that.
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)RobinA
(9,903 posts)reaction was that it was terrorists because it was right before the Atlanta Olympics. I remember they had some big terrorism guy in place right after it happened. Can't remember his name, but he was all over the airwaves.
WovenGems
(776 posts)Every accident teaches us how to be more safe. From that one we learned vapors make a good explosive. What the conspiracy boobs failed to take into account was the explosion itself.
Turbineguy
(37,392 posts)A shiny new scandal. It's no doubt Obama's fault for not having gotten to the bottom of this earlier.
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 20, 2013, 05:19 PM - Edit history (2)
How long before Nutty Nadin and that ilk come along and try to pin this one on Obama. They'll try to desperately connect the dots. Book it.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)You don't even say anything about the content of the thread. Just smear. Stay classy.
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Obama, in 1996, was a college professor. What would he have to do with this event in 1996?
Turbineguy
(37,392 posts)Obama was responsible for the intelligence lapse that allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to take place. You gotta keep up on your GOP history!
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)I was at a softball game on the North Shore of Suffolk County. There were 2 other witnesses on the North Shore, and 2 people in Bridgeport. Ct. Impossible for any of us that far away to see the actual plane explode. Besides which, we all saw that object in the sky at least 15 minutes before the crash. I learned that all of us described the same thing at approximately same time before the crash. We were told we saw debris from the plane explosion. Well, unless it happened earlier than what they said, that would be impossible. No, I am not mistaken about the time because that softball game had gone into extra innings and I was checking my watch to see how late it was because I wanted to go home.
To this day, I still cannot say exactly what it was I saw. It was a bright light with a contrail, and from the ballpark, it was going in a southeast direction. I have flown in and out of JFK many times. I have seen many, many planes in the sky. This looked nothing like that which made me keep watching and following it. The surprising thing about it was that it was at a fairly low altitude, but I could not see any form other that a round white light. Missile? Wouldn't you be able to at least see the darkness of the metal? Comet? Meteorite? Don't know, but I saw what I saw and it could not have been plane debris.
The government investigation dismissed us since we were nowhere near the crash. Commander Donaldson didn't and I believe our statements were used by him in his report.
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Please read sections 1.18.4 through 2.2.2.2 of the Accident Report and get back to us...
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)when it hasn't happened yet. That was the problem. The time line didn't match. Understand that? I saw that whatever in sky a good 15 minutes before the plane exploded. Yes, I was sure of the time because I had looked at my watch right before because of the softball game.
I was not only contacted by Donaldson, but also families of the victims. They wanted me to testify in court. I declined. I should have just plain kept my mouth shut because I went though a lot of shit reporting this. Never again.
Edit: Donaldson had me draw him a map showing the direction it was going. I was in Northwest Suffolk county. The plane exploded on the Southeast part of Suffolk. If it was from the explosion, what I saw should have been coming from the southeast; not the opposite direction.
I am not saying it was a missile. In all the searching I did of pictures on the net, it looked more like a meteorite. That couldn't take down a plane and cause an explosive it it hit in the fuselage?
byeya
(2,842 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)I watched the NYC local channels all evening before the eyewitness accounts were stuffed down the memory hole.
I believe that the actual target was the El Al flight that was delayed, and that it was a terrorist attack.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Baclava
(12,047 posts)New TWA 800 Radar Tapes Inexplicably Appear Revealing 'Blip Activity'
The National Transportation Safety Board has released radar data from the night TWA Flight 800 crashed that reveal radar-blip activity omitted from earlier reports.
New radar data relating to the July 17, 1996, explosion of TWA Flight 800 that went down off the coast of Long Island, N.Y., inexplicably have just become available. The well-publicized previous data focused narrowly on a 20-nautical-mile circle centered on the crash site and was the basis of the FBI's conclusion that there was little air or naval traffic in the selected area at the time of the crash. But that restricted data pattern, it turns out, is only a subset of a larger radar field.
The new data just obtained from sources at the National Transportation Safety Board, or NTSB, show that between the perimeters of a 22-nautical-mile circle and a 35-nautical-mile circle, a concentration of a large number of radar blips appears to be moving into a well-known military warning area closed to civilian and commercial traffic.
The anomaly presented by the additional data is as yet unexplained...the Department of the Navy specified that the closest naval vessel was the USS Normandy, 185 nautical miles to the south.
http://www.ufodigest.com/flight800.html
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)I am glad the truth is finally coming to light!
Baclava
(12,047 posts)or so they say
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Missiles were used there too. IMO
<a href="http://imgur.com/i0mBqyb"><img src="" title="Hosted by imgur.com"/></a>
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Following the story on (I think) CNN, I distinctly remember the FBI being on scene, and telling all boaters in the area basically "thanks for the offer to help look for survivors and debris fields, but no thanks." Especially since not too long before this incident, the ValueJet plane went down in the Everglades and I remember the local sheriff and the NTSB specifically asked for local citizens who owned swamp boats to help with the search.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)The crash site was in a place where the Navy/Coast Guard/NYPD/whoever can easily mobilize all the big boats they need, and civilians would just clog the way...For crashes in the Everglades, it's not like Fire/Search+Rescue Services have hundreds of swamp boats at the ready and know their way around the swamp like locals do...
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)within easy listening range of the NYC stations.
Here's what I heard: A woman who was walking her dog on the beach said she thought she saw the jet collide with a smaller plane.
That is not consistent with an "electrical failure". It is consistent with a surface-to-air missile strike. The fact that she didn't mention a missile actually lends credence to her account: she simply described what she saw, rather than jumping to conclusions.
on.
malaise
(269,256 posts)KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)and invaded the hotel where the victims' families were staying. A blast from the past:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-negroni/turtles-terrorists-and-tw_b_649590.html
a kennedy
(29,753 posts)calling it a cover up. I don't remember it that much.....
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Or is it just sensationalistic bullshit? Let me guess: It involves Bill Clinton somehow??
Remember just a couple years back there was an "investigative documentary" alleging a terrorist cover-up (lolz) in the Swissair 111 crash... http://www.thelocal.ch/20110916/1194
If these investigators are legit, let me steer them towards a couple of incidents lost to memory that are much, much more likely to be accidental shootdowns than TWA 800:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aer_Lingus_Flight_712
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerolinee_Itavia_Flight_870
In case anyone wanted to see the insider discussion:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5793260/
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)If these bona-fides don't impress you:
"...senior accident investigator with the NTSB and helped reconstruct the aircraft following its destruction"
"... TWA investigator who participated in the investigation"
"...accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association"
...then you probably don't believe in much of anything.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)For the love of god please let them have some real, hard, documented evidence if they're going to start picking at this wound again...Innuendo, speculation and hearsay won't cut it -- I want to know NAMES of who was responsible for the tragedy, and who participated in the cover-up...
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...that the investigation was truncated by higher-ups and they want to tell everyone what they know. I welcome their input.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)But nonetheless I'm interested in hearing what they have to say as well, as long as it's backed up with substance and not half-assed faceless accusations that will only be candy-covered crack for the U.N. Black Helicopters/33rd Masons/NWO -crowd...And while I'll admit to the investigators' sterling credentials and long-respected professional reputations, there are countless examples of people who have happily traded them in for a quick, fat payday...We'll see what's what soon enough...
The people involved in this project can at least get the ball rolling by answering (with documentation):
1. The specific type of missile (heat-seeking? radar-guided? laser-guided?) that supposedly brought down the aircraft, along with who owns or has the ability to fire it...
2. Why they didn't file a dissenting report, since the NTSB has always allowed it...
3. If a higher-up or outside agency told/threatened them to keep their lips sealed, then I want to know that person's name...
markiv
(1,489 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)But here is a previous press release from the producer of this "documentary"
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 16, 2011
CIA Knowingly Released False TWA 800 Video, Reported Directly to President Clinton
Within recently obtained CIA emails, agents admit that their video produced to explain eyewitness accounts from the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 did not match the evidence. In one email, an agent states that the video "could not possible (sic) match the radar data" that recorded the aircraft as it fell to the ocean.
In another, an agent discusses briefing then FBI Director Louis Freeh and President Clinton. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is by law, the government's lead agency in investigating commercial airline disasters. The CIA video did not "accommodate" NTSB-imposed time constraints on the crash sequence, according to a CIA agent in yet another email.
TWA Flight 800 crashed off the coast of Long Island, New York fifteen years ago on July 17, 1996. The FBI interviewed 182 eyewitnesses who reported seeing a rising streak of light near the jetliner before it exploded in midair. Some said the streak collided with the aircraft.
The FBI tasked a small group at the CIA to explain these eyewitness accounts. On November 18, 1997 the FBI released a CIA-produced video at a nationally televised press conference. The video showed the jetliner breaking in half and then the larger half that included the wings climbing sharply 3,000 feet. The CIA narrator said this "may have looked like a missile attacking an aircraft".
In August of 1999, the Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization (FIRO) showed how the CIA video did not match the radar evidence during a nationally televised press conference. The radar evidence indicated that the jetliner did not climb, but rather banked left and descended immediately after exploding.
On July 15, 2011, FIRO Chairman Dr. Tom Stalcup sued the CIA in federal court for more documents and information regarding the CIA's participation in the investigation of TWA Flight 800.
Contact
Dr. Tom Stalcup
Chairman, Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization
Sandwich, MA
Flight800.org
774-392-0856
http://flight800.org/news.htm
http://flight800.org/pr_rel_7_16_11.htm
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)They've been researching this for years. Are their queries for information in the past a reason to not trust their veracity?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Random, unnamed CIA agent sources are supposedly e-mailing Stalcup behind-the-scenes info?
Seems legit...
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)mn9driver
(4,429 posts)Very closely at the time, and still do. I am still in the airline business. I am a Navy trained aircraft mishap investigator.
I have not seen anything that I consider credible enough to change the official conclusions of the cause of this accident. That could change but I'm not holding my breath.
All commercial aircraft flying today are required to have a center tank inerting system, retrofitted if necessary. The research and development and the expense of installation has cost the airline industry billions of dollars and the project isn't even complete yet.
All of that is due to TWA 800. A massively expensive multi-decade project just to bolster a cover up? I'm not buying it.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...that fact alone makes me pay attention.
mn9driver
(4,429 posts)Maybe not. I've worked with many people in this profession over the last 33 years. Some few of them are very much crackpots. And I ain't kiddin.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and he taints the credibility of those associated with his project, and any new information they might reveal...
Why even do a documentary in the first place (unless as I sadly suspect it's to dress up speculatory bullshit in a glitzy package to get a lot of viewers watching some no-name channel trying to break into the big-time)? Why couldn't the investigators have gone into any New York/Washington news outlet (or London if they don't trust domestic media) and said something like:
"I'm so-and-so, I was one of the primary investigators of the TWA 800 tragedy, and my colleagues and I have new evidence indicating that the incident was the result of a missile strike/bomb deployed by ________, and this evidence was squelched in the original investigation by NTSB Chairman Jim Hall at the behest of the U.S. Attorney General, and the Secretary of Defense..."
Even worse than garden-variety conspiracy theory nuttery; this whole project is looking more and more like an attention-whoring publicty stunt...God help them if this is the case...
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)If there was *ANY* honest-to-god legit proof of a missile or bomb, allowing Boeing to shed off all legal liability, they would've been the FIRST ones to publicly dispute the official findings...
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Gotcha there. It was all a scheme to sell the N2 systems!
Honestly, DU should bring back the DUngeon.
It's like when so many mental illness treatment facilities were closed in the 80's, and the problem of homelessness has ever since been conflated with people wandering the streets talking to their demons.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I've always wondered if perhaps two "insane" people were on the same wavelength? I mean, in New York, there is a guy walking down the street shouting. "Nobody tells a Navy man when he's had enough to drink. A Navy man knows when he's had enough to drink!"
Then on the other side of the world, somewhere far away, the other half of the argument is going on. "Shut up. You were never in the Navy. And you've had too much to drink, you're falling down for the love of pete."
Just an image I've always liked. Sorry, return to the thread.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I'm going to need to see your internets license.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I wouldn't rule it out, but I wouldn't bet on it.