Added: 4 years ago
From: afiraaa
Views: 16,225
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (35)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @soundscape718 Why not blame it on a missile, then you have an excuse to go and bomb the crap out of some country you don't like. Its the wrong way around to be a conspiracy.

  • @steamgeezer You got that right! EXCELLENT point!

  • sticking a heat source underneath a fuel tank is a bad idea? OMG who'da thought...

  • @soundscape718 - conspiracy theories are there to make money for the book publishers etc etc and for (as you say) lunatics to rant on........we are still getting conspiracy theories over here in the UK about Princess Diana's car crash in Paris 14yrs ago! they cant accept that it was an accident ! people are convinced that 2nd jet to slam into the WTC had something fitted to its undercarriage when in reality you can see its the 'belly' part of the jet where the tyres retract ! how dumb...........

  • I dont believe this. Look at who was on that plane, and what important roles they played. When the U.S. wants you dead, civilians are casualties of war, i feel very sory for the innocent people on this flight and their famlies. Rest in peace!

  • you wont see me on no damn 747!!

  • Wow, you really have to admire the pilots of that test flight! Talk about iron balls!!!

  • I was on a TWA flight from JFK to France just 3 weeks before. It might have been the same plane.

  • Jet fuel flash points vary greatly... TWA prob used type A.. with flash pt. of 38 degree C.with high end to 60 deg. C. Wonder what the flash point is for jet fuel made with 20% babassu and coconut used in a test flight by Virgin Atlantic in 2008.. Hmm

  • Wow also all the electric wiring was recovered and it was concluded to be not the cause of any spark.

    There is an FBI video where some guy says "Man I wish Clinton would get off his ass and do something about this terrorism. FBI guy says, you can't say that....guy interuppts saying, this was DEFINITELY an outer explosion."

    Also 96 witnesses said they saw a missile.

  • They're saying the flash point of jet fuel is 36 degrees celsius!? They're fucked. It's over 60.

  • @JohnnieNaked lol Yeah Haha 36 lol In that case there probably should be Ice cubes in the tank as a safety measure.

  • @JohnnieNaked This is the British version of the show. In Europe, they use Celsius temperatures. Therefore, your conspiracy FAILED because you don't know to recognize accents and measures used elsewhere.

  • @lotwyo The numbers I used were in celsius, numbnuts. I'm Canadian so we use celsius too. Look up the flashpoints for yourself before just assuming the other person is a complete idiot next time ok? It might save you some embarrassment.

  • The investigators figured this out are true geniuses. These guys are experts in the true sense of the word.

  • These tragic accidents are not enough for some....they always have to make up 'it was a missile' and such and such...........funny how theres large amounts of people who rush to say " I saw this" etc etc....

  • how do you think the plane exploded then?

  • A missile hit the plane on the outside. The Fuel wasn't hot enough to explode so a spark in the Center Wing Tank couldn't have caused it to explode, it was something external which had to be a missile. 739 people saw a bright flash indicating it was infact a missile.

  • 739 people saw a plane explode. there is no evidence what they saw was a missile, and the only 2 photos that show a "missile" have been found to be either faked or are just mistaking other things for a missile

  • Yeah and I rather believe them over the government who wasn't there and disposed of all the physical evidence. Some of these witnesses aren't ordinary. There is one who was in the military with 25 years of experience and he knows it was a missile. The problem is all the physcial evidence is gone so there is nothing. Why was the FBI all over the crash site if terrorism had been ruled out. This was the job for the NTSB not the FBI. It was a missile so if you don't want to believe it it's your loss

  • but like i just said, there is no evidence of any missile. anyway there wasn't anything in the area that was capable of firing a missile at the plane, they even checked if any of the helicopters were in the area and they can't even fire missiles! also how would this one person in the military know if it was a missile if he hadn't seen any of the wreckage or the actual missile its self, just the explosion of the plane

  • Who the said the missile was launched from the air? It came from the ocean which meant a navy vessel must have did it by mistake or it had to be terrorism. Well the FBI disposed all the evidence to make it seem like there wasn't a missile present. You think they're going to leave evidence around like that? The streak of light everyone saw was a missile and I believe them over the gov't. The NTSB didn't even interview these witnesses, just shut them out because they think they know everything.

  • They checked all the navy vessels, and they had the correct amount of missiles still inside, therefore non of the missiles had been shot

  • Yeah so you're taking their word for it. You don't know how many missiles they had or if any were missing. Ofcourse they're going to deny it, no one tells the truth anymore. There was a test performed with the jet fuel type used in TWA Flight 800 and a flame was lit and once it was dipped into the fuel the flame was put it out. No little spark could have caused an explosion and missile residue was all over the seats.

  • like i said earlier, weren't you watching the video? they heat up the fuel like it would be in the plane and it explodes.

  • did you watch the video?? firstly it wasn't 'missile residue' it was traces of plastic exlosives which aren't used in missiles, and secondly it would be perfectly possible for the plane to continue to climb as the main fuselage and wings were still largely intact and the engines throttled up. why believe an illogical theory that the us government covered something up over the scenario that 20 year old wiring short circuited causing a spark, something that happens all the time?

  • There was missing evidence that the FBI did not want us to see. Since criminal activity was ruled out why was the FBI needed in this investigation huh? They didn't even use any of the information the 739 witnesses provided. This was the job of the NTSB not the FBI. The fuel wasn't hot enough to explode from a small spark. They even used the excuse of the Wing tank being empty which meant there was oxygen in there but that's a lie too. This was a cover-up I suggest you accept it.

  • @BillyHerbie Yeah well either way the fact remains that both of them could happen again

  • Like I said the fuel wasn't "hot" enough for a small eletrical spark to cause an explosion. Something happened externally. Also the evidence meaning pieces of the aircraft were tampered with and the pieces missing are the pieces with all the proof a missile hit the plane. An airplane can't ascend thousands of feet if it exploded. The NTSB said the plane lifted in altitude as soon as it exploded to explain the streak of light but there isn't enough kinetic energy for that to happen.

  • it was hot enough, we're you watching the video??

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more