@macrent2 I don't think all died right away, some in back might have been alive until the plane crashed. remember that the last 2/3 of plane climbed then stalled then crashed into the sea
@Truthseeker4449 Yeah, it is pretty sickening. I saw a documentary on the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger back a few month ago. It exploded and broke up at an estimated 12.3 miles above the earth and during autopsy they discovered that the crew had survived the fall from that high.
This plane was shot down because it had doctors aboard who had discovered a cure for AIDS and were going to present their findings to others in the medical community.Clinton had it shot down. They purpose of AIDS is reduce world population , so one worlders like Clinton will always do what they can to prevent it.
4:28- you think we should take the bump flight? Because I think we could get some money. Who wants to sit in a jumpseat on a Trans-Atlantic flight? Take 800.
@cchris874 yeah. I would vote that too. Having no control over the airplane knowing that you were just sitting there waiting to die with no chance of saving the plane at all.
National Geographic has become a revolting mouthpiece of government and the elite - supporting global warming and other nonsense like this. This is what happens to institutions. Very sad. Watch an honest documentary starting here: L6BUXu0AEpg
Today marks the fourteenth anniversary of this tragedy. Wow... 14 years is a long time. I was five when this happened now I'm nineteen. I hope the 230 victims in that tragic crash are still resting in peace. :'(
@bwd81977 - if it was terrorism, why would they keep it quiet? The government profits ENORMOUSLY from terrorism - so much so that they actually plan out false flag attacks (Operation Northwoods) to get more money and power. No, they want to keep it quiet because it was an embarrassing mistake by our military.
@ScottfromTexas I was thinking because this happened during the Clinton administration, at a time when Bin Laden wasnt a house hold name, and mabey they didnt want to alert the public. But the mistake by the military is another very plausible argument. They actualy admited to there being some traces of an explosive that they said was used during a bomb sniffing dog exersice or something. So there was some type of explosive there.
The explosive residue was there, yes. But why would you admit to something you are trying to cover up? Hmm, something isn't adding up here. . .
-
The best explanation is the one in the NTSB report: it was introduced AFTER the plane was brought out of the water - most likely by explosives experts who examined it, who are often in contact with such stuff. The reason is that F800 was in the water too long for explosive residue to have remained in any identifiable condition.
@cchris874 - "But why would you admit to something you are trying to cover up?" Because that is the best way to control information when they know it would be found.
@cchris874 "The best explanation is the one in the NTSB report: it was introduced AFTER the plane was brought out of the water - most likely by explosives experts who examined it, who are often in contact with such stuff."
AWESOME - now I can get away with anything - obviously they are too incompetent not to contaminate evidence. If they did that accidentally what other evidenced have they intentionally done?
Perfectly reasonable. I questioned this a lot too, and used to lean more in the direction of a missile. But then I found things weren't adding up very well. And then I debated it with a former NTSB guy. I ended up reluctantly letting go, though anything is still possible.
-
I also question everything too, ESPECIALLY cocky CTers who tell us to question everything. They don't usually follow their own advice very well. And because they don't know how to evaluate evidence.
There is little chance this was friendly fire. It's inconceivable that dozens of 19-year-old sailors on these ships, who do their 6 month stints, and then are discharged, are all going to keep quiet for 14 years.
-
There's also a BIG problem with any missile theory: the time discrepency between the end of the streak, and the main fireball explosion. The witnesses say it was 1 to 5 seconds. That is impossible because the fireball was some 30 seconds later.
@cchris874 - "There is little chance this was friendly fire. It's inconceivable that dozens of 19-year-old sailors on these ships, who do their 6 month stints, and then are discharged, are all going to keep quiet for 14 years. "
The ones that don't agree to will be killed.
They were quiet when they INTENTIONALLY shot and murdered people on the ground (the wikileaks video) WITH PROOF of it. Why would any of those who were there stick their necks out without any proof knowing they would be dead
Because they would have come forth anonymously - someone would have. But not even that has happened. Bottom line for me - there ain't no proof.
-
I'd like to see someone - you, anyone, deal with the biggest flaw in the entire missile theory: the botched crash sequence. We know from some witnesses that the fireball happened below 8,000 ft, or about 30 seconds after the initiating event. That doesn't match witnesses who say the fireball erupted not more than 5 seconds later.
@cchris874 - "Because they would have come forth anonymously"
No means and no evidence. Why would they?
You have to say eyewitnesses are inaccurate when they see a missile (oh, yeah, it was on radar too, but don't let that fact distract you!) yet accurate when judging time to the second and altitude by the foot. You remind me of contestants on "Who wants to be a millionaire" who don't realize what lifeline is correct. Some things are perfect to ask the audience - others are self-defeating
If you can provide the proof, I'll take a look again. I've seen those pics before of the little blip, but it seemes to be moving away from F800.
Witnesses: first, they didn't know what they were seeing. Most of them didn't say "yes, I saw a missile," at the time. I take them for exactly what they stated: a streak of light was seen, culminating in an explosion a few seconds later - not 30 seconds later. Like Fritz Meyer, for example.
1) many people observe streak of light before major fireball.
2) Most of these say it was followed within 5 seconds by a major explosion.
In your mind, that's positive proof of a missile. In my mind, that's proof of a streak of light, with the possibility of a missile. But a very unlikely one, given the timing is off, and given that the streak could have been something else (such as burning stream of fuel), and the lack of any other positive evidence.
Now I'm the 1st to admit all this might look a lot at first like a missile. It's when you delve into the details - details you don't even want to get into, I bet, that things don't add up. Yes, you're right, we might be able to stretch 5 seconds into 30 seconds. But by the same token, why are you trying to pigeonhole that streak into only one thing - a missile? That's looking a lot like that same episode of "Who want's to be a millionaire" to me.
OK, there we have it. A tried and untrue formula that you can count on when someone who knows their TWA 800 As Bs & Cs tries to engage in a discussion with a missile proponent: end all discussion ASAP, shove all the counter evidence off into a corner and skip happily away. Hey, it's a free country after all.
@cchris874 - what are you talking about? The only counter argument is that witnesses which you have to both believe and disbelieve, apparently, testified that there was some gap between the streak and the explosion. Many things could explain that including CLOUD COVER. Could also be that the fuel in the rocket had burned up already - it is already traveling upward and will continue to its target. Further.....
Yes, and many things could explain all the things I mentioned too. What this says to me is that you start with the conclusion the missile theory is set in stone, and all the other possibilities are to be ignored. Then question only the arguments that support the official report, and never the missile arguments.
Start with "cloud cover." You've lost me on that one. Kindly explain (if you'd care to.)
That is, the witnesses say the fireball erupted within 5 seconds of the end of the streak of light. That is called a major discrepency, and suggests the streak of light was something else all together - something occuring WELL AFTER the time F800 first broke up.
I have yet to see a single missile proponent deal with this basic problem. Maybe you will be the first to make it fit with a missile theory.
I still remember this tragedy, because on that day on which TWA 800 should have arrived in Paris I have also arrived there with an Air France flight from Stockholm. And even in the early afternoon when my flight has landed there has been a "cancelled" behind the announcement of TWA 800 on the indicator-board of arrivals! :-(
Something weird: this aircraft was a 747-100, the earliest series; and on the wreckage one can see the upper deck of a latter 747-200 aircraft...how can that be ? The latest photos showed that the 747 had only three windows on the upper deck,; the wreckage had much more...
True, but not weird. The -100 design was modified early on with an option for 10 windows on the upper deck. The accident plane was such an aircraft but TWA kept the 3 window option for reasons of fleet commonality. This was done by plugging the remaining 7 window frames. The crash caused these plugs to fall out on one side.
BTW, some airlines decided to keep a 3 window upper deck on their 200s ! It's all part of the fun of being an aviation buff. Check out the site "airliners" for pictures.
James Kallstrom was Klintons cover up guy of this take down of an airliner. Huge ads were taken out in the N Y Times with many top military people, pilots, and pax survivors signing on to reinvestigate an error? by the Navy which did conduct exercises in this area. As told by missile carrying patrol boat ppl, they did "hot" missions in which airliners were targeted with missile sights Ethics torpedoed along with safety "painted"airliners are unaware. A error by sailors would destroy aircraft!
its interesting cause if u look at the wreckage, there are more windows on the upperdeck than the one they show on the documentary...which only has 3, whereas the wreckage shows three times as many
This whole thing was really disturbing and sad to me, I remember it really well.
THECARS7879 4 months ago
@macrent2 I don't think all died right away, some in back might have been alive until the plane crashed. remember that the last 2/3 of plane climbed then stalled then crashed into the sea
Truthseeker4449 7 months ago
@Truthseeker4449 Yeah, it is pretty sickening. I saw a documentary on the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger back a few month ago. It exploded and broke up at an estimated 12.3 miles above the earth and during autopsy they discovered that the crew had survived the fall from that high.
macrent2 2 months ago
this guy is my favourite presenter sucks in australia coz we like never get this guy
jkillO5 9 months ago
Captain Kevorkian?! I hope this wasn't an "assisted suicide."
DCFunBud 10 months ago
I'm not sure what caused the plane to explode.
EZR09 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we can pretend that airplanes in the night sky like shooting stars (8)
britishairwayspilot1 11 months ago
shame to keep this vid on,when the world knows what reaaly happened.....!!!!!!
MrPhattdirty 1 year ago
I feel horrible for what happened to all those people who died in that awful incident.
EZR09 1 year ago
my dad was going to be on this flight its a miracle he changed it
kingmaher34 1 year ago
@tbursee I hope to GOD (who ironically doesn't exist) that you are kidding! I mean, I never, EVER heard anything so ignorant or insane. WOW!
macgeek2004 1 year ago
@tbursee
macgeek2004 1 year ago
And those same people would later go on to plan 9/11! Gasp! (lol, j/k, i hope u r 2)
macgeek2004 1 year ago
This plane was shot down because it had doctors aboard who had discovered a cure for AIDS and were going to present their findings to others in the medical community.Clinton had it shot down. They purpose of AIDS is reduce world population , so one worlders like Clinton will always do what they can to prevent it.
tbursee 1 year ago
@tbursee This is not true! Are you crazy? You're an idiot!!
Scotishirony 9 months ago
@tbursee wow
barthoedemaker 9 months ago
@tbursee you`re a fuckin idiot. I`m surpised you made it through kindergartenyou fucking dumbass. What lame post. Moron
marksallow 1 week ago
4:28- you think we should take the bump flight? Because I think we could get some money. Who wants to sit in a jumpseat on a Trans-Atlantic flight? Take 800.
arithebomb 1 year ago
this has to be THE WORST air disaster ever. i mean what those poor passengers went through. RIP.
jsb3287 1 year ago
@jsb3287
My vote is for JAL flight 123 - 35 minutes of nonstop terror. Not that I would want to have been on either!
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 yeah. I would vote that too. Having no control over the airplane knowing that you were just sitting there waiting to die with no chance of saving the plane at all.
petey815 1 year ago
Did Pan Am went bankrupt??????????
dilubabaya 1 year ago
@dilubabaya Yep. Afer Lockerbie disaster.
chernwei5784 8 months ago
National Geographic has become a revolting mouthpiece of government and the elite - supporting global warming and other nonsense like this. This is what happens to institutions. Very sad. Watch an honest documentary starting here: L6BUXu0AEpg
ScottfromTexas 1 year ago
Today marks the fourteenth anniversary of this tragedy. Wow... 14 years is a long time. I was five when this happened now I'm nineteen. I hope the 230 victims in that tragic crash are still resting in peace. :'(
Remember TWA Flight 800!!!
Digilady99 1 year ago
@Digilady99 - I hope their souls haunt all those involved in covering up this clear military friendly-fire incident.
ScottfromTexas 1 year ago
The whole thing still stinks to me.
fiann1 1 year ago
@fiann1 - that is because it is a clear coverup.
ScottfromTexas 1 year ago
I was on a TWA flight from JFK to France just 3 weeks before. It might have been the same plane.
closedcircle1 1 year ago
I still think it was terrorism, and the govt. wants to keep it quiet.
bwd81977 1 year ago
@bwd81977 - if it was terrorism, why would they keep it quiet? The government profits ENORMOUSLY from terrorism - so much so that they actually plan out false flag attacks (Operation Northwoods) to get more money and power. No, they want to keep it quiet because it was an embarrassing mistake by our military.
ScottfromTexas 1 year ago
@ScottfromTexas I was thinking because this happened during the Clinton administration, at a time when Bin Laden wasnt a house hold name, and mabey they didnt want to alert the public. But the mistake by the military is another very plausible argument. They actualy admited to there being some traces of an explosive that they said was used during a bomb sniffing dog exersice or something. So there was some type of explosive there.
bwd81977 1 year ago
@bwd81977
The explosive residue was there, yes. But why would you admit to something you are trying to cover up? Hmm, something isn't adding up here. . .
-
The best explanation is the one in the NTSB report: it was introduced AFTER the plane was brought out of the water - most likely by explosives experts who examined it, who are often in contact with such stuff. The reason is that F800 was in the water too long for explosive residue to have remained in any identifiable condition.
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 - "But why would you admit to something you are trying to cover up?" Because that is the best way to control information when they know it would be found.
ScottfromTexas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cchris874 "The best explanation is the one in the NTSB report: it was introduced AFTER the plane was brought out of the water - most likely by explosives experts who examined it, who are often in contact with such stuff."
AWESOME - now I can get away with anything - obviously they are too incompetent not to contaminate evidence. If they did that accidentally what other evidenced have they intentionally done?
ScottfromTexas 1 year ago
@cchris874 I know. I dont really know what happened, I just like to question everything. Especialy the "official" version of events.
bwd81977 1 year ago
@bwd81977
-
Perfectly reasonable. I questioned this a lot too, and used to lean more in the direction of a missile. But then I found things weren't adding up very well. And then I debated it with a former NTSB guy. I ended up reluctantly letting go, though anything is still possible.
-
I also question everything too, ESPECIALLY cocky CTers who tell us to question everything. They don't usually follow their own advice very well. And because they don't know how to evaluate evidence.
cchris874 1 year ago
@ScottfromTexas
There is little chance this was friendly fire. It's inconceivable that dozens of 19-year-old sailors on these ships, who do their 6 month stints, and then are discharged, are all going to keep quiet for 14 years.
-
There's also a BIG problem with any missile theory: the time discrepency between the end of the streak, and the main fireball explosion. The witnesses say it was 1 to 5 seconds. That is impossible because the fireball was some 30 seconds later.
-
Ponder.
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 - "There is little chance this was friendly fire. It's inconceivable that dozens of 19-year-old sailors on these ships, who do their 6 month stints, and then are discharged, are all going to keep quiet for 14 years. "
The ones that don't agree to will be killed.
They were quiet when they INTENTIONALLY shot and murdered people on the ground (the wikileaks video) WITH PROOF of it. Why would any of those who were there stick their necks out without any proof knowing they would be dead
ScottfromTexas 1 year ago
@ScottfromTexas
Because they would have come forth anonymously - someone would have. But not even that has happened. Bottom line for me - there ain't no proof.
-
I'd like to see someone - you, anyone, deal with the biggest flaw in the entire missile theory: the botched crash sequence. We know from some witnesses that the fireball happened below 8,000 ft, or about 30 seconds after the initiating event. That doesn't match witnesses who say the fireball erupted not more than 5 seconds later.
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 - "Because they would have come forth anonymously"
No means and no evidence. Why would they?
You have to say eyewitnesses are inaccurate when they see a missile (oh, yeah, it was on radar too, but don't let that fact distract you!) yet accurate when judging time to the second and altitude by the foot. You remind me of contestants on "Who wants to be a millionaire" who don't realize what lifeline is correct. Some things are perfect to ask the audience - others are self-defeating
ScottfromTexas 1 year ago
@ScottfromTexas
"Oh yeah, it was on radar"
-
If you can provide the proof, I'll take a look again. I've seen those pics before of the little blip, but it seemes to be moving away from F800.
Witnesses: first, they didn't know what they were seeing. Most of them didn't say "yes, I saw a missile," at the time. I take them for exactly what they stated: a streak of light was seen, culminating in an explosion a few seconds later - not 30 seconds later. Like Fritz Meyer, for example.
cchris874 1 year ago
@Scott
Solet's review so far:
-
1) many people observe streak of light before major fireball.
2) Most of these say it was followed within 5 seconds by a major explosion.
In your mind, that's positive proof of a missile. In my mind, that's proof of a streak of light, with the possibility of a missile. But a very unlikely one, given the timing is off, and given that the streak could have been something else (such as burning stream of fuel), and the lack of any other positive evidence.
cchris874 1 year ago
@ScottfromTexas
Now I'm the 1st to admit all this might look a lot at first like a missile. It's when you delve into the details - details you don't even want to get into, I bet, that things don't add up. Yes, you're right, we might be able to stretch 5 seconds into 30 seconds. But by the same token, why are you trying to pigeonhole that streak into only one thing - a missile? That's looking a lot like that same episode of "Who want's to be a millionaire" to me.
-
Cheers
cchris874 1 year ago
@ScottfromTexas
- "Silence tells me secretly, eeeverything. . . "
OK, there we have it. A tried and untrue formula that you can count on when someone who knows their TWA 800 As Bs & Cs tries to engage in a discussion with a missile proponent: end all discussion ASAP, shove all the counter evidence off into a corner and skip happily away. Hey, it's a free country after all.
Cheers
Chris
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 - what are you talking about? The only counter argument is that witnesses which you have to both believe and disbelieve, apparently, testified that there was some gap between the streak and the explosion. Many things could explain that including CLOUD COVER. Could also be that the fuel in the rocket had burned up already - it is already traveling upward and will continue to its target. Further.....
ScottfromTexas 1 year ago
@ScottfromTexas
"the only counter argument"
-
What are YOU talking about? I only menttioned one major point. There's so much else, such as:
1) streak of light could be omnidirectional explosion seconds before main fireball
2) the reasons behind FBI tampering
3) the zoom climb and its purpose
4) the radar blip moving away from 800
etc., etc., etc,
There's so much to chew on, if you're up for it that is. No pressure or anything, but missile skeptics aren't all dummies, you know.
cchris874 1 year ago
@ScottfromTexas
You write: "Many things could explain. . . . "
Yes, and many things could explain all the things I mentioned too. What this says to me is that you start with the conclusion the missile theory is set in stone, and all the other possibilities are to be ignored. Then question only the arguments that support the official report, and never the missile arguments.
Start with "cloud cover." You've lost me on that one. Kindly explain (if you'd care to.)
cchris874 1 year ago
@ScottfromTexas
That is, the witnesses say the fireball erupted within 5 seconds of the end of the streak of light. That is called a major discrepency, and suggests the streak of light was something else all together - something occuring WELL AFTER the time F800 first broke up.
I have yet to see a single missile proponent deal with this basic problem. Maybe you will be the first to make it fit with a missile theory.
Cheers
cchris874 1 year ago
I was just a couple months old when this happened. I wish TWA didn't go bankrupt though. They're a great airline.
airplanegod 1 year ago
too bad the twa 747s were ausome planes
too bad twa retired them in 1997
TheNw1218 1 year ago
see on the raydar it says TWA 900
1imthwalrus 1 year ago
@1imthwalrus That's another flight. Look below it and you'll see TWA 800.
arithebomb 1 year ago
what's the subtitles' language ?
aeroavia89 1 year ago
There was a famous guitarist on this flight.
MrJackanthony 1 year ago
is the pilot of the eastwinds 737 john travolta ?
smiley10494 1 year ago
@smiley10494 i think it was
1imthwalrus 1 year ago
twa's planes were soo old, esp for 747-100 model.
qwertyguy76 1 year ago
My father was having a party with his friends in New Jersy at the time of crash.!!!
dilubabaya 2 years ago
don't blame the the terrorist....blame india !! those racist lowlives r the piece of roadkill trash on our beautiful planet !!
shrestha841 2 years ago
TWA 800 was the second worst aircraft accident in the United States at that time.
Kanefan701 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Great crash, Cheers!
rufusandburne 2 years ago
I still remember this tragedy, because on that day on which TWA 800 should have arrived in Paris I have also arrived there with an Air France flight from Stockholm. And even in the early afternoon when my flight has landed there has been a "cancelled" behind the announcement of TWA 800 on the indicator-board of arrivals! :-(
MrSunnymind 2 years ago
TWA Airlines should return. I've read about it's history. TWA is great airline.
RIP TWA Flight 800.
Kanefan701 2 years ago
I still remember that day like it was yesterday.
nenblom 2 years ago 9
what is the subtitle language?
toonnr414 2 years ago
goblin
goblinking169 2 years ago
@toonnr414 Hi,the subtitle language is Malay (Bahasa Melayu).The language is spoken in Malaysia.
alexthebullo 2 years ago 3
Thanks for the upload its a good crash this one!
rufusandburne 2 years ago
I know your probably joking, but over 200 people died. Thats nothing to joke about.
TEEJAY9920 2 years ago
from wat i understand. final destination 1. based there plane crash on this. is that true?
HOCKEYRULES35TIMES 2 years ago 4
@HOCKEYRULES35TIMES
Yes, they did.
toakodan 2 years ago
oh thats a horrible way to die :(
HOCKEYRULES35TIMES 2 years ago
@HOCKEYRULES35TIMES
I know...
toakodan 2 years ago
This is one of the most historic crashes of all time.
I'm looking into this with great intrest.
TWA flight 800, a 747 aircraft that we will always remember forever.
Kanefan701 2 years ago
I am sure that they all died very quickly, not knowing what had happened.
macrent2 2 years ago 22
yes, certainly since the aircraft's disintegration occured almost instantly.
aeroavia89 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did they died?
BloodLimitNinja 2 years ago
Something weird: this aircraft was a 747-100, the earliest series; and on the wreckage one can see the upper deck of a latter 747-200 aircraft...how can that be ? The latest photos showed that the 747 had only three windows on the upper deck,; the wreckage had much more...
projet941 2 years ago
True, but not weird. The -100 design was modified early on with an option for 10 windows on the upper deck. The accident plane was such an aircraft but TWA kept the 3 window option for reasons of fleet commonality. This was done by plugging the remaining 7 window frames. The crash caused these plugs to fall out on one side.
BTW, some airlines decided to keep a 3 window upper deck on their 200s ! It's all part of the fun of being an aviation buff. Check out the site "airliners" for pictures.
cchris874 2 years ago 3
Alot of airlines can choose what kind of cabin they want. Iv'e seen a 747-400 with the cabin of a 200.
bignitro50 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Did anyone noticed the video takes 9:11 :o like 9/11
Lancer2884 2 years ago
Greg Scarpa-MAFIA BOSS-told FBI TWICE that Ramsey Yousef had terrorists BOMB THAT PLANE.THE FBI DID NOTHING.-AS USUAL.
ed11561 2 years ago
It was the fuel tank and everybody knows that.
AmericanAirlinesRule 2 years ago
c6482, thats bs- its been proven that it was not a missile-wakeup
marklar74 2 years ago
I was in Virginia Beach, VA the night flight 800 exploded.
suiteliferocks9 3 years ago
thats a fascinating story there
brclnarocks 3 years ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
LMFAO!
mtheriault6 2 years ago
beatlebonzo 3 years ago 3
wow very sad
ryanendersmith 3 years ago 3
Actually it was a Boeing 747-100.
cc6482 3 years ago 3
its interesting cause if u look at the wreckage, there are more windows on the upperdeck than the one they show on the documentary...which only has 3, whereas the wreckage shows three times as many
maudale 2 years ago
was it a boeing 707?
ChidoriStar 3 years ago
it was a cover-up - missile
c6482 3 years ago
missil
montruo000000007 3 years ago 4
:^((
boroboy99999 3 years ago 5
They dont tell ya there was 17 kids from a highschool on board
seeamare 3 years ago
There were a lot of kids on board. Remember watching the news reports on tv right after it happened.
NYCParanormal 3 years ago
From PA., among other states.
mortysand 3 years ago 3
they did too tell me!! what are u talkin bout? all passengers were named...
marklar74 2 years ago
wah gara-gara kecelakaan ini, para perusahaan pesawat meningkatkan keamanannya di bagian tangki bahan bakar
ronyelcalimaty 3 years ago