ummmmm I don't buy your version sorry it sounds like our governments navy fired on twa 800 many witnesses to colaborate this and all you do have a nice day and i hope you find jesus
One problem here, Ron Brown died in April of '96. TWA 800 went down (however) in July of '96. i don't believe the line the government is towing but this seems like bull shit.
@Truth4Americans can you expand on this for me??? Why fake his death if you're going to kill him. And if you do fake his death, why not just disappear him and be done with it?? Wouldn't have to bring down a flight full of people and deal with us talking about it now
If you don't remember the News reports about the radar blip, just look up the original news footage here on YouTube! Research for yourself... It was an election year and news of the U.S. Navy accidentally shooting down a civilian airline flight would have ruined Bill Clinton's chances of winning the re-election. It is amazing to me how the govenment will cover something up and the general public just believes it. Watch these:
I am a commercially rated pilot and planes do not just blow up for no reason! The evidence is clear: Radar blip seen by ATC, Red residue on seat covers was proven to be solid rocket fuel, eye witnesses saw the flames of a missile shooting up into the sky, the secrecy of the recovery area to recover the Navy missile. The break up pattern of the 747. James Sanders independent investigation provided irrefutable proof it was accidentally shot down by the U.S. Navy. But some believe the cover up?!!
It was accidentally shot down by the United States Navy testing a new missile when OPFOR successfully jammed it and it lost contact with the target drone it was supposed to shoot down. Terrible tragedy! The families deserve to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones. It's an even greater tragedy that the government covered up the truth.
There was no fuel in the center tank... and JetA has a flash point of 100 degrees F, which means it doesn't give off the vapor that can ignite, unless heated to 100 degrees F. James Sanders did an independent investigation for TWA and concluded it was struck by a missile shot by the US Navy. Also, ATC reported seeing a blip closing on the aircraft on the radar screen, but they were quick to cover that up too. It was a horrible accident by the U.S. Navy, but the U.S. government won't admit.
The red residue on the seats was proven to be solid rocket fuel by an independent lab. Eyewitnesses saw a missile launching into the night sky. ATC filed a report that they saw a blip closing on the aircraft. The Navy was in that area testing a new missile that night. But yet people believe the lie the government has concocted. TWA Flight 800 was accidentally shot down by the U.S. Navy test firing a new missile. The bottom line is the families of deserve to know!
The red residue on the seats was proven to be solid rocket fuel by an independent lab. Eyewitnesses saw a missile launching into the night sky. ATC filed a report that they saw a blip closing on the aircraft. The Navy was in that area testing a new missile that night. But yet people believe the lie the government has concocted. TWA Flight 800 was accidentally shot down by the U.S. Navy test firing a new missile. The bottom line is the families of those who perished that night deserve to know.
The day the accident happened ATC filed a report that they saw a blip closing on TWA Flight 800 which was consistent with a missile. It takes SEVERAL weeks!Sometimes months to examine pixel by pixel, frame by frame of the radar tapes to definitively determine what that blip really was. But yet they came on the News less than 24 hours & suddenly said it was an anomaly on the radar screen?!! Come on, that is ridiculous! That told me something was fishy!
@AmericanPowerBase I don't know if the man who claims to be my father actually penetrated my mother. Then again, I don't know if the lady who claims to be my mother actually allowed my father to penetrate her. I'll have to look for THE slip of the tongue, THE overlooked document, THE obscure reference or THE previously unheard recording. I'll then connect the dots as you suggested. After all, according to you, that's ALL we need to do in order to get to the real truth!
@AmericanPowerBase - Throwing insults out at people and their parents on YouTube provides SOLID PROOF that YOU are an intellectual. Congrats!!! Use your statement of, "just because there is no solid proof does not make it true" if you're ever up in front of a jury or judge for any sort of offense. Tell the jury to simply "connect the dots" and you'll be sure to get off scot free!!! Figments of peoples' imaginations are not ANY type of evidence, let alone solid.
Are you, or is someone you know in charge of making sure that the UK trains US killers? When did MI5 set up the CIA? Do you have, or have access to, FACTUAL information? What sources are your claims based on? Aside from something conjured up on YouTube, where can I see for myself? Putting aside my patriotism, Israel dons the best espionage/spy agencies. Then we can't forget about Russia. Let me guess though - MI5 trains them too??? Like we say here in the states, "show me the money!"
exactly....these conspiracy theories are starting to give me headaches too.
I would respect it more if the author had written to relook the case, but saying flat out that it was purposeful order is plain delusional. I'd like to see his papers, not YouTube video bullshit.
@AceofDlamonds Thank you. Good to know that there are those with a bit of common sense. After all, common sense is not too common!!! As for the missile theory - It was almost completely dark out and the plane was flying nine miles from the southern COAST of Long Island. I'd heard that some of the missile claims came from people traveling on the LI expressway - that's five miles north of the coast. How in hell could they have been able to tell that it was a missile from 15 miles away???
@machinegunboy98 Thanks...Austin Milbarge (Dan Aykroyd's character in "Spies Like Us") made a very good statement right before he was about to improvise an appendectomy: "We mock what we don't understand." I aim this toward the conspiracy theory advocates. Get some solid proof FIRST.
Fact: The U.S. military and intelligence are the best trained outfits of their kind in the world - We have the most highly skilled killers know to man. With no problem whatsoever, they could easily have taken this Mohammed character out and made it look like someone else did it . Your claim: The government killed 230 people so it would look like an accident. A bit far-fetched on your behalf, don't you think?? Ferrat & Tarref - All this proves is that some theories prove nothing at all!
@1televizija Best trained; No that British intelligence, you ignorant fool. We even train your killers. MI5 even setup the CIA. Now shut the hell up moron.
@stig781 Are you, or is someone you know in charge of making sure that the UK trains US killers? When did MI5 set up the CIA? Do you have, or have access to, FACTUAL information? What sources are your claims based on? Aside from something conjured up on YouTube, where can I see for myself? Putting aside my patriotism, Israel dons the best espionage/spy agencies. Then we can't forget about Russia. Let me guess though - MI5 trains them too??? Like we say here in the states, "show me the money!"
MK ultra was a secret mind control experiment performed by the CIA during the 1960's, when did they admit that? Who are the CIA people that talk about it? This is not the only time things have been done in secret, and no one talks aboiut it. Oh it is found in released documents after years of FOIA requests, but who has talked about. The military and CIA are the masters at keeping secrets. They just have to give the order, and no one can or will talk about it. You are being nieve.
Hundreds of people necessarily involved in a conspiracy, 15 years go by, administrations change, people have thoughts, but still no one on the inside talks???Oh, conspiracy theories, are not they wondrous?
I read a article in American Spectator about this years ago and that was the craziest story i ever read. Its started off about this commission that was packed full of washington bis shots and the wife of one of the victims. Al Gore accidently hit reply all and forwarded her a email to the others asking if anybody new if she would cooperate and for her FBI psych profile and she opened a lawsuit to find out why they were trying to use mind control on her.
Smells like disinformation. If they needed to kill this arab man they wouldn't wait until he got on board and then shoot missiles in front of hundreds of witnesses. Flight 800 was shot down by military missiles most likely fired by US Navy assets in the area. Whatever the reason, it's more important to show it was shot down and there's evidence for it before promoting theories on why. Dr Stalcup found debris exiting Flight 800 on radar at mach 4. Impossible for a fuel explosion.
Brown was killed in a plane crash in Croatia in April of 1996. TWA Flight 800 crashed on July 17th, 1996. Your argument is invalid. Thanks for playing!
Don't think for a second that this fucked up slimy corrupt government wouldn't pull this kind of shit. They've been at it a long time. They are fucking experts. Do you really think they wouldn't kill 4000 people to advance their agenda. Fuck the government!!! Revolution now!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not quite. Only a few people stated they saw two distinct objects. Also note how missile proponents seem unaware that the fireball erupted below 8,000 ft, requiring an over 30 second gap between the end of the streak and the eruption of a fireball. Please name a witness who gives an account that matches this known timetable.
@cchris874 Jack cashill the author of First Strike talked about the eye-witnesses.I haven't done that much research myself but you could be right. I usually refer to people smarter than I am on stuff like this.
I used to lean towards missile for many years. The turning point for me was belatedly learning that the fireball happened below 8k ft, or over 30 sec after when the missile would have hit. But witnesses seem to say the fireball erupted only1-5 sec later. 2nd, William Tobin's sworn testimony. In it, he explains that the FBI's evidence tampering was precisely BECAUSE they were convinced there was sabotage.
cont'd. . . Kallstrom of the FBI came within hours of announcing sabotage to the press, and Tobin put his foot down firmly in the nick of time: "I ended up wearing a few particles of Kallstrom's saliva on my face," or to that effect, he stated. That's a much less fanciful explanation for the FBI's behavior - they wanted to take over the investigation ASAP by declaring the event sabotage.
In addition, a more recent demonstration formally proves that F800's CWT could have exploded. See watch?v=SLDflxKUURo on Youtube.
I believe the streak witnesses saw the fireball in its beginning sequence, probably producing omnidirectional explosions, some of which shot upwards like a flair. But who knows for sure. Anything's possible.
@cchris874 this does not duplicate the conditions. airframe was cold-soaked for hours, so should not have got to 112F, but even if it did, CWT did not explode on tarmac. ground temp was 77F, at 13000ft based on 3.5F lapse rate/1000ft, would be about 45F colder. 77F-45F=32F or freezing temp! lapse rate is really 3.56, so could be a degree or two colder than freezing, not in a desert in the sun like the test. no stirring fan in tank. also heard fuel in test not straight jetA so this proves nothing
re: fuel tank test. I'm not good at physics, but I don't find it credible to suggest that the NTSB investigators are a bunch of idiots who can't figure out how to calculate the temp of the CWT. The main point of the demonstration for me was showing how it's not far-fetched that a small spark can ignite fuel vapors under certain in-flight conditions. At least that much is worth noting. Compare and contrast w missile evidence.
@cchris874 well, in this case there is a ton of pressure on NTSB from CIA. things like radar tapes were leaked by NTSB, but their main story has to mesh. seriously, this plane was at like 30F BELOW zero for six hours, i just don't see how in 77F it will be that hot in 3 hrs. test in desert took hours to heat it up WITHOUT first cold-soaking the airframe. and again, it wasn't on the tarmac in 77F, but airborne in approximately freezing air when it blew up.....
@jesusfreak0818 cont'd... plus test guy said they used a mixing fan to create vapor. if heat alone was enough they would not need a fan to blow up the test tank! the theory it can happen comes from the Iranian aircraft that had an explosion, but that was not fueled with Jet A, but far less stable fuel. i saw a lit cigarette extinguished in a container of Jet A once. i would not try that with the other fuel. 77F not that hot, kinda avg for AC packs, so it should not be able to over heat it ....
re: cold soaked: I would assume an airframe is not very cold for very long once it gets back to the ground. The outside of an airframe also gets very hot due to friction even if the fuel gets very cold. But coming from Athens, flight 881 would have used up the vast majority of fuel, even if fully fueled there. It's a 10+ hour flight to JFK. And if the CWT is almost empty, the fuel would be less able to retain temp. But I'll look into this some more in the FR.
If the planes were scrambled out of MCAS Beaufort, more than likely they were F/A-18 Hornets. But they musta been the back-up plan. The other videos said that the plane was taken out by a heat-seeking SAM fired from Long Island or a SHIP ...
Do you have a source for the transcript beginning at 2:22?
One comment: "There still has been no explanation." There was indeed an explanation. Maybe it doesn't satisfy everyone, but it's no longer a genuine mystery how it might have happened by accident.
@cchris874 actually, the wiring in the fuel tank purposely can't spark hot enough to ignite or blow it; damage to fuselage was altered, but originally supports missile; missile propellant/explosives residue on a diagonal path through cabin; all eye-witnesses especially on local stations talked about something flying up to the plane, then at some point that evening NOBODY said it, like flipping an off switch; it could not have happened by accident the way they say it did.
My main question to you is, how are you able to get so many points wrong, but post them so confidently as if they were fact? Pick one of your 4 main points, and we can break it down and see what's wrong (or right) with it.
@cchris874 i stand by what i said. i was glued to the local news ALL NIGHT in my queens hotel room, & absolutely the change in the news coverage was commented on extensively by our crew when we got together to fly the rest of our trip the next day. i personally observed that, so i don't see how you will refute it, but feel free to try. it was people in locations far enough away from each other that could not have met or spoken to each other, and were on a beach, not watching news but living it
@cchris874 also, the plane climbing after the tank explodes does not explain what witnesses saw. if you want to try to refute the laws of physics, i'd enjoy seeing you try. how did it climb and not decelerate? how did the wing not stall for it to keep climbing? if the front end comes off, the tail would swing down literally instantly, stall the wing, and it would drop like a rock. if it climbed, it HAD to decelerate, but radar showed no deceleration of the climbing object(which was the missile).
Lets stay focused on one issue at a time. The first point you made was the wiring in the fuel tank purposely can't spark hot enough to ignite or blow it
OK, lets get specific: how hot would a spark have to be to ignite the thing? The NTSB says between about 10 and 100 millijoules of energy would do it. Do you know more than they do? What number would you give, and what is your source?
@cchris874 you said pick one issue & you'd break it down. i picked the witnesses being silenced & the alleged "explanation" for what they saw. i'm assuming you can't refute that one, since you then switched to the spark in the tank with no comment about witnesses or aerodynamics.
the NTSB is part of the cover-up, since they failed to oppose it but how hot are they talking in degrees? i once saw a firefighter put out a lit cigarette in a beaker of jet A, so it must be ALOT hotter than that!
@jesusfreak0818 lets ask theNTSB. in their report, the CWT FQIS wiring does not get more than0.02 mJ (p.34), the wiring in the tanks has no connectors and is at least 3" from anything it could arc to. (p. 78, p. 80); all they say is "wires were blackened, but there was a fire", a wire routed through the same raceway shows signs of arcing, but no others in that bundle did (tho' the FQIS wires are conveniently missing, so i guess we coooooouuuuuld surmise that surely the wires WE DON'T HAVE did it
@jesusfreak0818: "you said pick an issue. i chose the witnesses being silenced"
Hold on a second. Your response was " i was glued to the local news. . . . absolutely the change in the news coverage. . . I personally observed that."
@jesusfreak0818: "you said pick an issue. i chose the witnesses being silenced"
Hold on a second. Your response was " i was glued to the local news. . . . absolutely the change in the news coverage. . . I personally observed that."
That's a bunch of undefined pronouns, and mentions neither the words "witness" nor "silenced." Then there was talk of the laws of physics, "climbing plane," missiles and aerodynamics.
Having looked at the witness evidence so many times before, my position is that the claims as a whole do allow for some reasonable and interesting speculation but fall way short of proof positive. If you want to get into some of this detail, I'm all for it. Or if you want to get into the zoom climb, let's dispense with it right now. I agree with you it did not happen.
@cchris874 if the zoom climb didn't happen, what did they see streaking up towards the plane? the reason i said "silenced" is that very abruptly that went from being heard in all the news reports to not spoken of at all. in other venues, witnesses haven't changed their story (they saw something streak up) and some have claimed their testimony was disregarded by the feds.
why? it contradicts "official" lies
if you have some alternate explanation for what they saw i'd love to hear your theory....
Alternative theory: interesting question to be sure. I do believe there were lots of witnesses, and I do believe many of them did see something streaking upwards. My alternative best guess is burning streaks of jet fuel. There may be valid objections to this. But there are also, IMO, valid objections to streak=missile as well.
@cchris874 the main objection to burning streaks of jet fuel is that the main large explosion (or as NTSB calls it "overpressure event") didn't happen yet. if fuel was somehow venting from the jettison ports, it would not be burning. in systems class we learned most of it evaporates. if fuel vents from the CWT, that would simultaneously release pressure, and lessen the chance it go boom. there is no reason that fuel would ignite. not near external hot things (engines). only 300lb fuel in there.
@jesusfreak0818 re burning streaks, I envision this as a result of smaller explosions before the main fireball that everyone saw.
Here's a problem w the streaks=missile theory. There was a rather large time gap (over 30 seconds, as I recall) between the intial event and the main fireball. I'm going by memory for now, but I recall most witnesses not giving such a time lag.
@cchris874 ok, just to be clear, what is your source for a 30-second gap? what are you referring to as the "initial event"?
i don't think burning streaks of fuel would allow for a 30 second lag, either. what ignited the fuel? how would it burn 30 seconds without involving the airframe sooner? a working fire doubles in size every 12 seconds.
i think you are correct that witnesses did not indicate any time lag. i'm just not sure what source did. let me know so i can take a look at it...
@jesusfreak0818 "what is your source for a 30-second gap? what are you referring to as the 'initial event'? "
The rough chronology is based primarily on airborne witnesses. Initiating event (cwt explosion) was by all accounts at 8:31:12pm. Nose separation occurs 3-5 sec later. Beginning of major fireball starts about 34 seconds later, when aircraft is below 8,000 ft (and possibly lower than 6,000 ft)
This would have required more than 40 sec elapsed time between missile launch and fireball to appear, and over 30 seconds between end of streak and observed explosion. Burning streak appears 1-5 seconds before explosion by some witnesses. As I see it, the streak may have been an omnidirectional explosion at the beginning of the fireball.
Fireball is seen to hit ocean surface after about 10 seconds. Total time from beginning of aircraft break up to main fuselage hitting water is about 47-54 seconds, according to NTSB. Confirmed by witness who stated fireball struck ocean after only about 10-12 sec.
Lots of interesting witness testimony to chew on, such as Fritz Meyer's, whose claims are inconsistent with a missile.
- the NTSB final report, p.263 section 2.2.2.1 "Potential Explanations for Reported Witness Observations"
-The "Missile Witnesses" Myth. Google this sentence: "The key to understanding that's what the witnesses actually saw is the altitude of the Massive Fireball explosion." Lots of excellent stuff usually ignored by missile proponents.
So after having considered the basic problem with the timing of the witness observations, and seen the links I mentioned, do you still feel F800 had to have been a shoot down?
@cchris874 yup. i looked at the sources you noted here. sorry it took so long but found a few interesting things besides. just going over your earlier comments, i do think fritz meyer specifically said CIA scenario is NOT what he saw, & is consistent w/a missile. also the eastwind crew did see the initial explosion. it seems from atc transcripts they were looking at twa800 as a traffic target for them and had just flashed their landing lights at him moments prior to the explosion.
re Fritz Meyer. The key point is his observation that the fireball fell to the ocean in under 15 seconds, near the END of the break up sequence. A missile would be at the START of the event.I also find it interesting he said the streak was slightly descending, not ascending, which doesn't support rising flair like object.
re: Eastwind crew. This still doesn't work for two reasons: 1) they did not a see rising streak; 2) the time stamp on his comment to ATC was 8:31:50, or 38 seconds AFTER the initial break up. The captain stated he waited 10 sec. to report this, so that means the explosion he saw was about 28 seconds after the start of the sequence. The bright landing would make sense as the plane on fire after the intial explosion.
@cchris874 also the timetable may support a missile better. the big orange fireball was the fuel tank. what blew up white? white flash of smaller explosions would not be jetA. so the plane came apart and fell to about 8000ft & THEN the big orange fireball of the CWT (per timetable). eastwind crew said it was in normal level flight prior to exploding, no violent zoom or descent prior. something tore up the plane well before the CWT blew. tends to indicate yes it was a missile.
I agree, Eastwind doesn't support zoom climb. It tends to disprove both the zoom climb (he didn't see one) and a missile (did not see rising flair, saw explosion LATE in the accident)
I'm a physicist. I was on the investigative task force for this accident and that's all it was...an accident - - - No government official threatened to hurt me or my family if I didn't state otherwise nor did anyone offer me payment to do so. Everything you hear about this crash being part of a conspiracy / cover-up is complete and utter bullshit.
@cchris874 you said pick one issue. i picked witnesses being silenced & the fact that the official "explanation" for what they saw defies laws of physics.since you have skipped to wiring with no comment/refutation, i will assume you can't refute that.
when i say "purposely can't spark hot enough" i mean the design specs are for it to get no more than 0.02mJ. source is page 34 of the NTSB accident report. it also notes that wiring in the tanks is continuous and >3" from anything it could arc to
That's a bunch of undefined pronouns, and mentions neither the words "witness" nor "silenced." Then there was talk of the laws of physics, "climbing plane," missiles and aerodynamics. Forgive me if I failed to see "silenced witnesses" as your 1st single, specific point.
@cchris874 you said pick an issue. i chose the witnesses being silenced and the "explanation" for what they saw defying laws of physics. you do not refute that, so presumably you can't.
when i say wiring "purposely can't spark hot enough" i mean 0.02 mJ. my source is NTSB report page 34. also wiring in tanks is continuous and at least 3 inches from anything it could arc to. where in the report did they say they thought 10-100 mJ DID go thru tank wiring? i did not see it.
@cchris874 actually i specified that it was "like flipping an off switch" that suddenly we weren't hearing the testimonies about seeing a light streak up towards the plane.that's what change in the news coverage we observed.
granted, that doesn't prove a missile, but it certainly roused our curiosity at why the focus of coverage changed. we thought that + early (< 24 hrs) talk of a "mechanical" was very strange. that is just never done that fast, not until there's some investigating done 1st
@jesusfreak0818: "suddenly we weren't hearing the testimonies about seeing a light streak up . . .that's what change in the news coverage we observed. "
My memory is the change happened gradually. Whatever. In any rate. many things change in the course of any investigation. That's my problem with the missile scenarios: it's all so speculative and iffy. Could it have happened? I believe so. I just don't think it's likely, especially after so many years.
@cchris874 ok, then i guess you remember news coverage differently. but a few hours after isn't "the course of any investigation" at that time it was all about possible rescue and then we knew it would be recovery not rescue. this was the first few hours, nothing was remotely close to investigation. also giuliani had the feds sidetracked calling for the pax list from the airlines asap, but the airline is locked out of seeing list by law. THAT was the only thing being investigated that 1st night.
"but a few hours after isn't "the course of any investigation" at that time it was all about possible rescue and then we knew it would be recovery not rescue. "
Not sure I'm following you. Are you saying there was an "about face" those few first hours away from the witness evidence?
@cchris874 exactly. we got to out hotel & turned on our TVs. we landed at LGA just after it happened. that first night, at first we kept hearing witnesses say they saw a bright streak going up to it, then the fireball, then suddenly, you could flip channels all you want but now nobody is reporting on that. i'm not a journalist, but it seems odd to let go of such a potentially huge angle on a story unless some strong directives from above (way above) demanded it. it was weird/creepy how sudden.
@jesusfreak0818 OK, well I don't remember the exact chronology of the coverage the first night. But my impression was everyone thought bomb/sabotage/missile/whatever the first few days at least. Jim Kallstrom himself said (paraphrase) "There was something in the sky. It was ascending."
BTW, what airline were you with, and what was your position?
You state "it was people in locations far enough away from each other that could not have met or spoken to each other, and were on a beach, not watching news but living it"
This needs to be carfefully looked at. By itself your statement does not establish the existence of a missile. We have to have much more detail, and compare it with known facts.
Not just nonsense, but stupid idiotic ludicrous foolish assinine retardo defective inane nonsense to boot!
starmanskye 1 week ago
ummmmm I don't buy your version sorry it sounds like our governments navy fired on twa 800 many witnesses to colaborate this and all you do have a nice day and i hope you find jesus
moscowhalo 1 month ago
One problem here, Ron Brown died in April of '96. TWA 800 went down (however) in July of '96. i don't believe the line the government is towing but this seems like bull shit.
j1o2h3n4b5a6c7h8 2 months ago
@j1o2h3n4b5a6c7h8 Don't you get it man, everything around you is a conspiracy. :)
RealTalk147 2 months ago
@j1o2h3n4b5a6c7h8
Actually the illuminati covered up his death
Truth4Americans 4 weeks ago
@Truth4Americans I mean the illuminati faked his death and actually killed him on TWA flight 800
Truth4Americans 4 weeks ago
@Truth4Americans can you expand on this for me??? Why fake his death if you're going to kill him. And if you do fake his death, why not just disappear him and be done with it?? Wouldn't have to bring down a flight full of people and deal with us talking about it now
j1o2h3n4b5a6c7h8 4 weeks ago
this music is from gta4!
padiller 3 months ago
nice remix of the gtaiv upload music
Hot80s 5 months ago
If you don't remember the News reports about the radar blip, just look up the original news footage here on YouTube! Research for yourself... It was an election year and news of the U.S. Navy accidentally shooting down a civilian airline flight would have ruined Bill Clinton's chances of winning the re-election. It is amazing to me how the govenment will cover something up and the general public just believes it. Watch these:
7/96 BREAKING NEWS: The Crash of TWA #800 1of8
OneHoof 5 months ago
Comment removed
OneHoof 5 months ago
I am a commercially rated pilot and planes do not just blow up for no reason! The evidence is clear: Radar blip seen by ATC, Red residue on seat covers was proven to be solid rocket fuel, eye witnesses saw the flames of a missile shooting up into the sky, the secrecy of the recovery area to recover the Navy missile. The break up pattern of the 747. James Sanders independent investigation provided irrefutable proof it was accidentally shot down by the U.S. Navy. But some believe the cover up?!!
OneHoof 5 months ago
Comment removed
OneHoof 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It was accidentally shot down by the United States Navy testing a new missile when OPFOR successfully jammed it and it lost contact with the target drone it was supposed to shoot down. Terrible tragedy! The families deserve to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones. It's an even greater tragedy that the government covered up the truth.
OneHoof 5 months ago
There was no fuel in the center tank... and JetA has a flash point of 100 degrees F, which means it doesn't give off the vapor that can ignite, unless heated to 100 degrees F. James Sanders did an independent investigation for TWA and concluded it was struck by a missile shot by the US Navy. Also, ATC reported seeing a blip closing on the aircraft on the radar screen, but they were quick to cover that up too. It was a horrible accident by the U.S. Navy, but the U.S. government won't admit.
OneHoof 5 months ago
The red residue on the seats was proven to be solid rocket fuel by an independent lab. Eyewitnesses saw a missile launching into the night sky. ATC filed a report that they saw a blip closing on the aircraft. The Navy was in that area testing a new missile that night. But yet people believe the lie the government has concocted. TWA Flight 800 was accidentally shot down by the U.S. Navy test firing a new missile. The bottom line is the families of deserve to know!
OneHoof 5 months ago
The red residue on the seats was proven to be solid rocket fuel by an independent lab. Eyewitnesses saw a missile launching into the night sky. ATC filed a report that they saw a blip closing on the aircraft. The Navy was in that area testing a new missile that night. But yet people believe the lie the government has concocted. TWA Flight 800 was accidentally shot down by the U.S. Navy test firing a new missile. The bottom line is the families of those who perished that night deserve to know.
OneHoof 5 months ago
The day the accident happened ATC filed a report that they saw a blip closing on TWA Flight 800 which was consistent with a missile. It takes SEVERAL weeks!Sometimes months to examine pixel by pixel, frame by frame of the radar tapes to definitively determine what that blip really was. But yet they came on the News less than 24 hours & suddenly said it was an anomaly on the radar screen?!! Come on, that is ridiculous! That told me something was fishy!
OneHoof 5 months ago
@AmericanPowerBase I don't know if the man who claims to be my father actually penetrated my mother. Then again, I don't know if the lady who claims to be my mother actually allowed my father to penetrate her. I'll have to look for THE slip of the tongue, THE overlooked document, THE obscure reference or THE previously unheard recording. I'll then connect the dots as you suggested. After all, according to you, that's ALL we need to do in order to get to the real truth!
1televizija 6 months ago
@AmericanPowerBase - Throwing insults out at people and their parents on YouTube provides SOLID PROOF that YOU are an intellectual. Congrats!!! Use your statement of, "just because there is no solid proof does not make it true" if you're ever up in front of a jury or judge for any sort of offense. Tell the jury to simply "connect the dots" and you'll be sure to get off scot free!!! Figments of peoples' imaginations are not ANY type of evidence, let alone solid.
1televizija 6 months ago
US didn't kill him.the serbs did with a 30 year old russian missle. US technology- ftw.i rest my case.
mrstaggerlee1979 7 months ago
RDA of bs for purebred USA sheep. Also for Euro mutton,Australian, New Zealand (did we miss anymore) sheep. Bahhhhhhh bahhhhhhhhhh bahhhh bah.
1melizana 8 months ago
Are you, or is someone you know in charge of making sure that the UK trains US killers? When did MI5 set up the CIA? Do you have, or have access to, FACTUAL information? What sources are your claims based on? Aside from something conjured up on YouTube, where can I see for myself? Putting aside my patriotism, Israel dons the best espionage/spy agencies. Then we can't forget about Russia. Let me guess though - MI5 trains them too??? Like we say here in the states, "show me the money!"
1televizija 11 months ago
@1televizija
exactly....these conspiracy theories are starting to give me headaches too.
I would respect it more if the author had written to relook the case, but saying flat out that it was purposeful order is plain delusional. I'd like to see his papers, not YouTube video bullshit.
AceofDlamonds 10 months ago
@AceofDlamonds Thank you. Good to know that there are those with a bit of common sense. After all, common sense is not too common!!! As for the missile theory - It was almost completely dark out and the plane was flying nine miles from the southern COAST of Long Island. I'd heard that some of the missile claims came from people traveling on the LI expressway - that's five miles north of the coast. How in hell could they have been able to tell that it was a missile from 15 miles away???
1televizija 10 months ago
@1televizija (last sentence) "Oh, pick me pick me pick me teacher!!!" blurts out : "they couldn't have... everybody's full of bullshit."
machinegunboy98 10 months ago
@machinegunboy98 Thanks...Austin Milbarge (Dan Aykroyd's character in "Spies Like Us") made a very good statement right before he was about to improvise an appendectomy: "We mock what we don't understand." I aim this toward the conspiracy theory advocates. Get some solid proof FIRST.
1televizija 10 months ago
Fact: The U.S. military and intelligence are the best trained outfits of their kind in the world - We have the most highly skilled killers know to man. With no problem whatsoever, they could easily have taken this Mohammed character out and made it look like someone else did it . Your claim: The government killed 230 people so it would look like an accident. A bit far-fetched on your behalf, don't you think?? Ferrat & Tarref - All this proves is that some theories prove nothing at all!
1televizija 11 months ago
@1televizija Best trained; No that British intelligence, you ignorant fool. We even train your killers. MI5 even setup the CIA. Now shut the hell up moron.
stig781 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stig781 Are you, or is someone you know in charge of making sure that the UK trains US killers? When did MI5 set up the CIA? Do you have, or have access to, FACTUAL information? What sources are your claims based on? Aside from something conjured up on YouTube, where can I see for myself? Putting aside my patriotism, Israel dons the best espionage/spy agencies. Then we can't forget about Russia. Let me guess though - MI5 trains them too??? Like we say here in the states, "show me the money!"
1televizija 11 months ago
The thing i dont get is Why did they shoot down TWA flight 800? Why would they do it on purpose?
thenicholashuber 1 year ago
MK ultra was a secret mind control experiment performed by the CIA during the 1960's, when did they admit that? Who are the CIA people that talk about it? This is not the only time things have been done in secret, and no one talks aboiut it. Oh it is found in released documents after years of FOIA requests, but who has talked about. The military and CIA are the masters at keeping secrets. They just have to give the order, and no one can or will talk about it. You are being nieve.
Chesticus 1 year ago 2
Hundreds of people necessarily involved in a conspiracy, 15 years go by, administrations change, people have thoughts, but still no one on the inside talks???Oh, conspiracy theories, are not they wondrous?
TouchOfGreatness 1 year ago
I read a article in American Spectator about this years ago and that was the craziest story i ever read. Its started off about this commission that was packed full of washington bis shots and the wife of one of the victims. Al Gore accidently hit reply all and forwarded her a email to the others asking if anybody new if she would cooperate and for her FBI psych profile and she opened a lawsuit to find out why they were trying to use mind control on her.
MaDmOnkyKungFu 1 year ago
Smells like disinformation. If they needed to kill this arab man they wouldn't wait until he got on board and then shoot missiles in front of hundreds of witnesses. Flight 800 was shot down by military missiles most likely fired by US Navy assets in the area. Whatever the reason, it's more important to show it was shot down and there's evidence for it before promoting theories on why. Dr Stalcup found debris exiting Flight 800 on radar at mach 4. Impossible for a fuel explosion.
Exiles800 1 year ago
@Exiles800 Or the result of a fuel air explosion from the center tank...
raptors222222 1 year ago
LIES!!!!!WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST BRNG HIM IN FOR CORRUPTION!!!!!!! ANYONE GO FOR THIS IS STUPID ASS SHIT!!!!
DavidOwenWard 1 year ago
Brown was killed in a plane crash in Croatia in April of 1996. TWA Flight 800 crashed on July 17th, 1996. Your argument is invalid. Thanks for playing!
whitneyisbuttons 1 year ago 2
@whitneyisbuttons or was he?!
DaFarmer33 1 year ago
@whitneyisbuttons Thanks for being the ONLY commentor on here with Any "Intelligence" whatsoever!! :-)
San47di1 1 year ago
@whitneyisbuttons Here to help :D
raptors222222 1 year ago
Don't think for a second that this fucked up slimy corrupt government wouldn't pull this kind of shit. They've been at it a long time. They are fucking experts. Do you really think they wouldn't kill 4000 people to advance their agenda. Fuck the government!!! Revolution now!!!!!!!!!!!!!
muldoon55 1 year ago
I like how the investigators dismissed the 200 eye-witnesses who saw a rocket hit the plane.What a joke!
friendofCHAKA 1 year ago
@friendofCHAKA
Not quite. Only a few people stated they saw two distinct objects. Also note how missile proponents seem unaware that the fireball erupted below 8,000 ft, requiring an over 30 second gap between the end of the streak and the eruption of a fireball. Please name a witness who gives an account that matches this known timetable.
Thanks
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 Jack cashill the author of First Strike talked about the eye-witnesses.I haven't done that much research myself but you could be right. I usually refer to people smarter than I am on stuff like this.
friendofCHAKA 1 year ago
@friendofCHAKA
Hi,
I used to lean towards missile for many years. The turning point for me was belatedly learning that the fireball happened below 8k ft, or over 30 sec after when the missile would have hit. But witnesses seem to say the fireball erupted only1-5 sec later. 2nd, William Tobin's sworn testimony. In it, he explains that the FBI's evidence tampering was precisely BECAUSE they were convinced there was sabotage.
cchris874 1 year ago
@friendofCHAKA
cont'd. . . Kallstrom of the FBI came within hours of announcing sabotage to the press, and Tobin put his foot down firmly in the nick of time: "I ended up wearing a few particles of Kallstrom's saliva on my face," or to that effect, he stated. That's a much less fanciful explanation for the FBI's behavior - they wanted to take over the investigation ASAP by declaring the event sabotage.
Cheers
cchris874 1 year ago
@friendofCHAKA
In addition, a more recent demonstration formally proves that F800's CWT could have exploded. See watch?v=SLDflxKUURo on Youtube.
I believe the streak witnesses saw the fireball in its beginning sequence, probably producing omnidirectional explosions, some of which shot upwards like a flair. But who knows for sure. Anything's possible.
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 this does not duplicate the conditions. airframe was cold-soaked for hours, so should not have got to 112F, but even if it did, CWT did not explode on tarmac. ground temp was 77F, at 13000ft based on 3.5F lapse rate/1000ft, would be about 45F colder. 77F-45F=32F or freezing temp! lapse rate is really 3.56, so could be a degree or two colder than freezing, not in a desert in the sun like the test. no stirring fan in tank. also heard fuel in test not straight jetA so this proves nothing
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
re: fuel tank test. I'm not good at physics, but I don't find it credible to suggest that the NTSB investigators are a bunch of idiots who can't figure out how to calculate the temp of the CWT. The main point of the demonstration for me was showing how it's not far-fetched that a small spark can ignite fuel vapors under certain in-flight conditions. At least that much is worth noting. Compare and contrast w missile evidence.
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 well, in this case there is a ton of pressure on NTSB from CIA. things like radar tapes were leaked by NTSB, but their main story has to mesh. seriously, this plane was at like 30F BELOW zero for six hours, i just don't see how in 77F it will be that hot in 3 hrs. test in desert took hours to heat it up WITHOUT first cold-soaking the airframe. and again, it wasn't on the tarmac in 77F, but airborne in approximately freezing air when it blew up.....
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818 cont'd... plus test guy said they used a mixing fan to create vapor. if heat alone was enough they would not need a fan to blow up the test tank! the theory it can happen comes from the Iranian aircraft that had an explosion, but that was not fueled with Jet A, but far less stable fuel. i saw a lit cigarette extinguished in a container of Jet A once. i would not try that with the other fuel. 77F not that hot, kinda avg for AC packs, so it should not be able to over heat it ....
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
re: cold soaked: I would assume an airframe is not very cold for very long once it gets back to the ground. The outside of an airframe also gets very hot due to friction even if the fuel gets very cold. But coming from Athens, flight 881 would have used up the vast majority of fuel, even if fully fueled there. It's a 10+ hour flight to JFK. And if the CWT is almost empty, the fuel would be less able to retain temp. But I'll look into this some more in the FR.
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 als
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818 oops, sorry 'bout that one....i will get you some links to check, too, but got to call it a night for now.....
regards...
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
the damage on the plane looks like it was struck by a missile
subzyro5 2 years ago
If the planes were scrambled out of MCAS Beaufort, more than likely they were F/A-18 Hornets. But they musta been the back-up plan. The other videos said that the plane was taken out by a heat-seeking SAM fired from Long Island or a SHIP ...
30mikemikevulcan 2 years ago
Hi,
Do you have a source for the transcript beginning at 2:22?
One comment: "There still has been no explanation." There was indeed an explanation. Maybe it doesn't satisfy everyone, but it's no longer a genuine mystery how it might have happened by accident.
Cheers
cchris874 2 years ago
@cchris874 actually, the wiring in the fuel tank purposely can't spark hot enough to ignite or blow it; damage to fuselage was altered, but originally supports missile; missile propellant/explosives residue on a diagonal path through cabin; all eye-witnesses especially on local stations talked about something flying up to the plane, then at some point that evening NOBODY said it, like flipping an off switch; it could not have happened by accident the way they say it did.
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
Hi,
My main question to you is, how are you able to get so many points wrong, but post them so confidently as if they were fact? Pick one of your 4 main points, and we can break it down and see what's wrong (or right) with it.
regards
Chris
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 i stand by what i said. i was glued to the local news ALL NIGHT in my queens hotel room, & absolutely the change in the news coverage was commented on extensively by our crew when we got together to fly the rest of our trip the next day. i personally observed that, so i don't see how you will refute it, but feel free to try. it was people in locations far enough away from each other that could not have met or spoken to each other, and were on a beach, not watching news but living it
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@cchris874 also, the plane climbing after the tank explodes does not explain what witnesses saw. if you want to try to refute the laws of physics, i'd enjoy seeing you try. how did it climb and not decelerate? how did the wing not stall for it to keep climbing? if the front end comes off, the tail would swing down literally instantly, stall the wing, and it would drop like a rock. if it climbed, it HAD to decelerate, but radar showed no deceleration of the climbing object(which was the missile).
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
Hi again,
Lets stay focused on one issue at a time. The first point you made was the wiring in the fuel tank purposely can't spark hot enough to ignite or blow it
OK, lets get specific: how hot would a spark have to be to ignite the thing? The NTSB says between about 10 and 100 millijoules of energy would do it. Do you know more than they do? What number would you give, and what is your source?
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 you said pick one issue & you'd break it down. i picked the witnesses being silenced & the alleged "explanation" for what they saw. i'm assuming you can't refute that one, since you then switched to the spark in the tank with no comment about witnesses or aerodynamics.
the NTSB is part of the cover-up, since they failed to oppose it but how hot are they talking in degrees? i once saw a firefighter put out a lit cigarette in a beaker of jet A, so it must be ALOT hotter than that!
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818 lets ask theNTSB. in their report, the CWT FQIS wiring does not get more than0.02 mJ (p.34), the wiring in the tanks has no connectors and is at least 3" from anything it could arc to. (p. 78, p. 80); all they say is "wires were blackened, but there was a fire", a wire routed through the same raceway shows signs of arcing, but no others in that bundle did (tho' the FQIS wires are conveniently missing, so i guess we coooooouuuuuld surmise that surely the wires WE DON'T HAVE did it
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818: "you said pick an issue. i chose the witnesses being silenced"
Hold on a second. Your response was " i was glued to the local news. . . . absolutely the change in the news coverage. . . I personally observed that."
cchris874 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
test post (having trouble with my reply.)
cchris874 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818: "you said pick an issue. i chose the witnesses being silenced"
Hold on a second. Your response was " i was glued to the local news. . . . absolutely the change in the news coverage. . . I personally observed that."
That's a bunch of undefined pronouns, and mentions neither the words "witness" nor "silenced." Then there was talk of the laws of physics, "climbing plane," missiles and aerodynamics.
cchris874 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
Having looked at the witness evidence so many times before, my position is that the claims as a whole do allow for some reasonable and interesting speculation but fall way short of proof positive. If you want to get into some of this detail, I'm all for it. Or if you want to get into the zoom climb, let's dispense with it right now. I agree with you it did not happen.
Cheers for now.
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 if the zoom climb didn't happen, what did they see streaking up towards the plane? the reason i said "silenced" is that very abruptly that went from being heard in all the news reports to not spoken of at all. in other venues, witnesses haven't changed their story (they saw something streak up) and some have claimed their testimony was disregarded by the feds.
why? it contradicts "official" lies
if you have some alternate explanation for what they saw i'd love to hear your theory....
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
Alternative theory: interesting question to be sure. I do believe there were lots of witnesses, and I do believe many of them did see something streaking upwards. My alternative best guess is burning streaks of jet fuel. There may be valid objections to this. But there are also, IMO, valid objections to streak=missile as well.
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 the main objection to burning streaks of jet fuel is that the main large explosion (or as NTSB calls it "overpressure event") didn't happen yet. if fuel was somehow venting from the jettison ports, it would not be burning. in systems class we learned most of it evaporates. if fuel vents from the CWT, that would simultaneously release pressure, and lessen the chance it go boom. there is no reason that fuel would ignite. not near external hot things (engines). only 300lb fuel in there.
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818 re burning streaks, I envision this as a result of smaller explosions before the main fireball that everyone saw.
Here's a problem w the streaks=missile theory. There was a rather large time gap (over 30 seconds, as I recall) between the intial event and the main fireball. I'm going by memory for now, but I recall most witnesses not giving such a time lag.
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 ok, just to be clear, what is your source for a 30-second gap? what are you referring to as the "initial event"?
i don't think burning streaks of fuel would allow for a 30 second lag, either. what ignited the fuel? how would it burn 30 seconds without involving the airframe sooner? a working fire doubles in size every 12 seconds.
i think you are correct that witnesses did not indicate any time lag. i'm just not sure what source did. let me know so i can take a look at it...
thanks
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818 "what is your source for a 30-second gap? what are you referring to as the 'initial event'? "
The rough chronology is based primarily on airborne witnesses. Initiating event (cwt explosion) was by all accounts at 8:31:12pm. Nose separation occurs 3-5 sec later. Beginning of major fireball starts about 34 seconds later, when aircraft is below 8,000 ft (and possibly lower than 6,000 ft)
cchris874 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
con'td
This would have required more than 40 sec elapsed time between missile launch and fireball to appear, and over 30 seconds between end of streak and observed explosion. Burning streak appears 1-5 seconds before explosion by some witnesses. As I see it, the streak may have been an omnidirectional explosion at the beginning of the fireball.
cchris874 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
Fireball is seen to hit ocean surface after about 10 seconds. Total time from beginning of aircraft break up to main fuselage hitting water is about 47-54 seconds, according to NTSB. Confirmed by witness who stated fireball struck ocean after only about 10-12 sec.
Lots of interesting witness testimony to chew on, such as Fritz Meyer's, whose claims are inconsistent with a missile.
cchris874 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
So to summarize: initiating event about or just before 8:31:12pm, invisible to everyone on ground
2 Nose comes off 3-5 sec later,
3 small explosion about 8:31:25-30, visible to some
4 streak appears about 8:31:40-44
5 fire ball appears 1-6 seconds later
6 fireball hits ocean about 10-12 seconds later
Total duration: about 47-54 sec.
Hard to get this streak to be a missile, IMO.
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 thanks for the sources, i'll check the sources before commenting further.
and to answer your question, i was a FA on a regional carrier. i'm a pilot, too, though.
regards...
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
The 2 best sources I have found are:
- the NTSB final report, p.263 section 2.2.2.1 "Potential Explanations for Reported Witness Observations"
-The "Missile Witnesses" Myth. Google this sentence: "The key to understanding that's what the witnesses actually saw is the altitude of the Massive Fireball explosion." Lots of excellent stuff usually ignored by missile proponents.
cchris874 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
So after having considered the basic problem with the timing of the witness observations, and seen the links I mentioned, do you still feel F800 had to have been a shoot down?
regards
Chris
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 yup. i looked at the sources you noted here. sorry it took so long but found a few interesting things besides. just going over your earlier comments, i do think fritz meyer specifically said CIA scenario is NOT what he saw, & is consistent w/a missile. also the eastwind crew did see the initial explosion. it seems from atc transcripts they were looking at twa800 as a traffic target for them and had just flashed their landing lights at him moments prior to the explosion.
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
re Fritz Meyer. The key point is his observation that the fireball fell to the ocean in under 15 seconds, near the END of the break up sequence. A missile would be at the START of the event.I also find it interesting he said the streak was slightly descending, not ascending, which doesn't support rising flair like object.
cchris874 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
re: Eastwind crew. This still doesn't work for two reasons: 1) they did not a see rising streak; 2) the time stamp on his comment to ATC was 8:31:50, or 38 seconds AFTER the initial break up. The captain stated he waited 10 sec. to report this, so that means the explosion he saw was about 28 seconds after the start of the sequence. The bright landing would make sense as the plane on fire after the intial explosion.
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 also the timetable may support a missile better. the big orange fireball was the fuel tank. what blew up white? white flash of smaller explosions would not be jetA. so the plane came apart and fell to about 8000ft & THEN the big orange fireball of the CWT (per timetable). eastwind crew said it was in normal level flight prior to exploding, no violent zoom or descent prior. something tore up the plane well before the CWT blew. tends to indicate yes it was a missile.
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
I agree, Eastwind doesn't support zoom climb. It tends to disprove both the zoom climb (he didn't see one) and a missile (did not see rising flair, saw explosion LATE in the accident)
regards
Chris
cchris874 1 year ago
I'm a physicist. I was on the investigative task force for this accident and that's all it was...an accident - - - No government official threatened to hurt me or my family if I didn't state otherwise nor did anyone offer me payment to do so. Everything you hear about this crash being part of a conspiracy / cover-up is complete and utter bullshit.
1televizija 11 months ago
@cchris874 you said pick one issue. i picked witnesses being silenced & the fact that the official "explanation" for what they saw defies laws of physics.since you have skipped to wiring with no comment/refutation, i will assume you can't refute that.
when i say "purposely can't spark hot enough" i mean the design specs are for it to get no more than 0.02mJ. source is page 34 of the NTSB accident report. it also notes that wiring in the tanks is continuous and >3" from anything it could arc to
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
That's a bunch of undefined pronouns, and mentions neither the words "witness" nor "silenced." Then there was talk of the laws of physics, "climbing plane," missiles and aerodynamics. Forgive me if I failed to see "silenced witnesses" as your 1st single, specific point.
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 you said pick an issue. i chose the witnesses being silenced and the "explanation" for what they saw defying laws of physics. you do not refute that, so presumably you can't.
when i say wiring "purposely can't spark hot enough" i mean 0.02 mJ. my source is NTSB report page 34. also wiring in tanks is continuous and at least 3 inches from anything it could arc to. where in the report did they say they thought 10-100 mJ DID go thru tank wiring? i did not see it.
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
OK, so let's go back to witnesses.
You wrote about a "change in the news coverage," but don't say what the change was. So how can anyone refute it?
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 actually i specified that it was "like flipping an off switch" that suddenly we weren't hearing the testimonies about seeing a light streak up towards the plane.that's what change in the news coverage we observed.
granted, that doesn't prove a missile, but it certainly roused our curiosity at why the focus of coverage changed. we thought that + early (< 24 hrs) talk of a "mechanical" was very strange. that is just never done that fast, not until there's some investigating done 1st
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818: "suddenly we weren't hearing the testimonies about seeing a light streak up . . .that's what change in the news coverage we observed. "
My memory is the change happened gradually. Whatever. In any rate. many things change in the course of any investigation. That's my problem with the missile scenarios: it's all so speculative and iffy. Could it have happened? I believe so. I just don't think it's likely, especially after so many years.
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 ok, then i guess you remember news coverage differently. but a few hours after isn't "the course of any investigation" at that time it was all about possible rescue and then we knew it would be recovery not rescue. this was the first few hours, nothing was remotely close to investigation. also giuliani had the feds sidetracked calling for the pax list from the airlines asap, but the airline is locked out of seeing list by law. THAT was the only thing being investigated that 1st night.
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
"but a few hours after isn't "the course of any investigation" at that time it was all about possible rescue and then we knew it would be recovery not rescue. "
Not sure I'm following you. Are you saying there was an "about face" those few first hours away from the witness evidence?
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 exactly. we got to out hotel & turned on our TVs. we landed at LGA just after it happened. that first night, at first we kept hearing witnesses say they saw a bright streak going up to it, then the fireball, then suddenly, you could flip channels all you want but now nobody is reporting on that. i'm not a journalist, but it seems odd to let go of such a potentially huge angle on a story unless some strong directives from above (way above) demanded it. it was weird/creepy how sudden.
jesusfreak0818 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818 OK, well I don't remember the exact chronology of the coverage the first night. But my impression was everyone thought bomb/sabotage/missile/whatever the first few days at least. Jim Kallstrom himself said (paraphrase) "There was something in the sky. It was ascending."
BTW, what airline were you with, and what was your position?
cchris874 1 year ago
@jesusfreak0818
You state "it was people in locations far enough away from each other that could not have met or spoken to each other, and were on a beach, not watching news but living it"
This needs to be carfefully looked at. By itself your statement does not establish the existence of a missile. We have to have much more detail, and compare it with known facts.
cchris874 1 year ago