I believe there was a way to determine whether it was hit by a missile. If the explosion on the wreckage was outward, it would be a fuel tank explosion. If it was inward, it was shot down by a missile. Unfortunately, the wreckage was damaged so badly that it was impossible to know.
for everyone who is a complete dumba** and thinks a spark brought it down and the NTSB would not lie, take this into accoun the NTSB would lie because it is a government organization of course they would cover up what the navy did, you are an idiot if you believe everything government agencies tell you. are you gonna believe eyewitnesses or a biased orgnization?
any plane,especially that size,and weight climbing up,after break-up is pure joke and a shame ,coming from an agency like NTSB,but it is not the first time that,we could never trust such agencies cock-suckers-swallowers and burp of joy.
@TheMscrp you are a FUCKING IDIOT. It was short circuting wire in the plane that jumped to the center wing tank and caused the explosion. There is EVIDENCE of this, a peice of worn out wire was found among the wreckage, and an Eastwinds Airlines pilot saw TWA 800 blow up in mid air, completley out of nowhere.
@fraroc you r 100% correct the stupid Americans (no offence) i agree with investigators never tell lies. and everyone here at the 12/16 or 16/12 of 2010 that believes that TWA 800 (747) thinks that that flight WAS SHOT DOWN ask the NTSB its was caused by a tiny spark
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.
i beleive the NTSB is correct and the people ho beleive other wise are ignorant. who has the experience and knowledge AND acually has the airplane did research on it got explosive specialists to determine that there was no missile and has the black box and the flight ata recorder definatly 2 dumb eye witneses thats for sure watch the video on it ill send the link to whoever wants it.
I'm pretty sure there were no high order detonation injuries present in the passengers. Even those sitting over the center tanks showed no evidence of this. Some families asked for private autopsies. None of these showed any high order detonation injuries. In actual cases of high explosives, the damage evidence is overwhelming.
This is absolute rubbish. TWA800 is one of three similar incidents in which a fuel tank ignition caused a sequential detonation sequence which did not compromise the main spa (otherwise the fuselage would've disintegrated). There is an old saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". This is proof positive of that point. I despair for humanity. The CIA and FBI correctly looked at every possible scenario in the criminal domain. Full credit to them for doing their job.
As far as missles go. A witness would have had to have been looking at the right place at the right time. Motor on missle burns for just a second or two then it coasts. They would not have seen any flame rising close to the target.
I would have thought that the fuel air mixture in the tank would have been way too rich to burn or explode. Even when "empty" that tank would still have several hundred gallons of fuel in it.
TWA flight 800 went down near East Moriches, Long Island...Ironically that was just few miles away from where the FBI had taken pictures of Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammed Salameth, El Sayyid Nosair, Nidal Ayyad, and Clement Rodney Hampton-El at the Calverton Shooting Range firing AK-47'S. For those that don't know, all of them are co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing..all had ties to Al queda.
The explosion took place near row 26, adjacent to the fuel tank...similar to to the terrorist bomb planted by Ramsy Yousef in PAL flight 434. Yousef was the mastermined behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. During the TWA tragedy Yousef was on trial...his attorney argued that the TWA tragedy will prejudice the jury.
Haha!! Idiot conspiracy theorists. You people rival creationists in your stupidity. "So was it shot down? That's down to your personal opinion". No. This flight was not shot down. That is a FACT. Idiots.
Secondly, why do people find it so hard to believe the plane started to climb before stalling?
As the video clearly states, there is a huge loss of mass at the front of the plane which would cause the tail to see-saw down, if the engines were still operating then this would lead to the climb.
No missile would twist and turn like those shown in the video, they would beeline towards their target. Maybe it was a missile, maybe not. But there is not enough proof to back the missile theory. Unless someone finds the missile remains, I am reluctant to believe the Conspiracy Theorists' claims of a missile. (Plus CTers love to try to implicate the government any way they can in just about any major event and then bash anyone that disagrees)
I am troubled by many conspiracy theories, but believe there is troubling evidence of a missile supported by the evidence. Explosive residue characteristic of a missile was found inside and out of the plane and confirmed by the FBI. And the percussive blast felt 20 miles away. A gasoline explosion does not travel with sufficient velocity to rattle a bridge, as was the case here. There's an interesting discussion going on here...
TWA Flight 800 Shot Down by Surface-to-Air Missile pt 5 of 6
All I know is the night this happened CNN was interviewing eye witness after eye witness and every single one of them said the exact same thing. A missile rose up and struck the plane then the plane crashed to the ground. Not one witness said anything else. Then the Governmnet says the were all wrong in what they saw. I trust the eye witnesses and not the lieing government. Someone shot this plane down whether it was our government or terrorists who knows.
Have you seen their explanation on Seconds from Disaster? The evidence they show suggests poor wiring caused a spark to ignite the vapor in a nearly empty fuel tank.
In a plane like that there are actually several sections of the plane used to house fuel. Oftentimes even on transatlantic flights it is not neccessary to fill every last one of them.
Boeing denied in writing what the NTSA claims here; namely, that they gave any credence to the theory that a climb after explosion was possible. It's written response was that Boeing did not see or comment on the video or its contents, and that eyewitnesses would be the best source of the plane's trajectory after the first explosion.
Read the book "First Strike" It explains that there may have been a smaller plane on a collision coarse with TWA800. An easy target for a terrorist attack right before the '96 Olympics. That be a way of getting world wide attention but...could we allow that to be???
After there was residue of High-explosives found on this plane everyone all across America should have refuesed even the mention of mechanical failure. In not doing so, we have failed the vicitms.
ok we found explosives in the plane wrap it up guys (nevermind the fact that this plane was used to train bomb-sniffing dogs, or that the explosives were nowhere near the location of the explosion). Also let's not look at the possibility of a problem in the plane which could happen again anytime, we told you there was RESIDUE OF EXPLOSIVES! oh and a terrorist attack would be very convenient since nobody would have to pay.. now THAT'S
When did I ever say the investigation should stop? The only thing that should have stopped is anyone accepting mechanical failure after explosive residue was found. Rather, we did accept it. The investigation must be intensified after explosives were discovered.
the presence of explosives in the plane was taken into account during the investigation, but it was discarded because it doesn't add up. the official explanation does work, a terrorist attack is very unlikely and a missile is practically out of the question.. btw boeing changed the design of their airplanes afterwards, which i think is a clue.
If you think that a plane with no nose climbing over a thousand feet at an angle well beyond wing stall is an explanation that makes sense, then we have nothing to discuss.
then explain me.. i'm interested since i'm a private pilot and student in aerospace engineering. why can't an airplane whose center of gravity is displaced far behind the wings and at climbing power go up?
how can i know if there is any wing stall without any data on the attitude or speed of the aircraft? the FDR stopped working at the moment of the explosion... the plane has lost weight when it lost its nose section, and the center of gravity moved backwards, so it seems quite logical to assume it pitched up.. doesn't it?
No, it doesn't. Even if the fuselage could handle the stress, the pitch up would be too far: Wing Stall in three seconds, too fast for a thousand foot climb.
If the nose section were cleaved off as shown, then you have an open fuselage of a 747 going into 800 kM/h wind. This is a closed fuselage with no vent capable of channeling out the oncoming air. An open-front fuselage going into this kind of thrust would rip to pieces.
Can you see how the Governments model cannot work, now?
I'm not so sure about this... the fuselage section surrounding the wings is pretty strong, and i doubt that the stresses induced by the wind would exceed normal pressurization stresses. the aloha 243 flight suffered the loss of a good portion of its fuselage at cruising speed and still the rest of it held up.
Aloha lost most of it's roof, peeled back to the wing. This was just from wind diverted from a nose section, and it still took out half the plane.
This is a full open fuselage exposing both the cabin and cargo bay to frontal wind. Not to say that at 747 has a wider fuselage than Aloha's 737, meaning that the stress on the craft would be even greater.
aloha was not just because of the wind it blew up because of the inside pressure and metal fatigue.. but that's not the point anyway.
what i don't get is: what do you think happened? regardless of how or why it blew up, the attitude of the plane afterwards isn't what the controversy is about
That is the center of the controversy. The CIA produced the climb video to explain away reports of s streak of light coming from the horizon, and exploding in the air. The argument is that what eyewitnesses thought was a missile was just 800 going into a flaming climb. Since that is physically impossible (and it is) it proves that the governments claims are a mass-media lie.
We need to re-investigate starting with eyewitness accounts and real data. What really happened?
Should have just turned into a huge windsock, filled with air, inducing a pitch up and immediate flat spin to the water. That aircraft would have never climbed another 3000ft.
It was not shot down. This has been dispelled already. And it's a shame that many still believe that despite overwhelming evidence. It matters a lot b/c the cause of that crash could happen on other aircrafts.
There was a short circuit in the wiring system, which ended up in the center fuel tank, thus causing an explosion. Look at the evidence and the conclusion of the NTSB.
Please missile theorists?? Conspiracy theories are just an insult to the families who lost loved ones in the crash.
In all fairness the theory of the missile is too far-fetched to be taken seriously... there is absolutely NO evidence for it except for eyewitness accounts (which aren't exactly reliable). Damn a missile isn't that easy to hide! it would show up on every radar screen! (and there are a lot in this region). Covering that up would imply a huge conspiracy of silence.. and this is without considering the physical evidence for a technical failure..
I think it was shot down, a horrible human error that should have just been admitted to and done with. How do you explain the ship that darted away from the scene after the explosion and how do you explain the hidden radar section that would have showed where the missile came from. Plus the residue on the plane matches residue from a missile. A little too coincidental.
I believe there was a way to determine whether it was hit by a missile. If the explosion on the wreckage was outward, it would be a fuel tank explosion. If it was inward, it was shot down by a missile. Unfortunately, the wreckage was damaged so badly that it was impossible to know.
kalvin197 7 months ago
for everyone who is a complete dumba** and thinks a spark brought it down and the NTSB would not lie, take this into accoun the NTSB would lie because it is a government organization of course they would cover up what the navy did, you are an idiot if you believe everything government agencies tell you. are you gonna believe eyewitnesses or a biased orgnization?
harleyd089 9 months ago
any plane,especially that size,and weight climbing up,after break-up is pure joke and a shame ,coming from an agency like NTSB,but it is not the first time that,we could never trust such agencies cock-suckers-swallowers and burp of joy.
MrPhattdirty 11 months ago
It wasnt shot down It was the fuel tank it exploded
clagghead 1 year ago
@TheMscrp you are a FUCKING IDIOT. It was short circuting wire in the plane that jumped to the center wing tank and caused the explosion. There is EVIDENCE of this, a peice of worn out wire was found among the wreckage, and an Eastwinds Airlines pilot saw TWA 800 blow up in mid air, completley out of nowhere.
SO THERE!
I REST MY FUCKIN CASE
fraroc 1 year ago
@fraroc you r 100% correct the stupid Americans (no offence) i agree with investigators never tell lies. and everyone here at the 12/16 or 16/12 of 2010 that believes that TWA 800 (747) thinks that that flight WAS SHOT DOWN ask the NTSB its was caused by a tiny spark
luapslev5826 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
i beleive the NTSB is correct and the people ho beleive other wise are ignorant. who has the experience and knowledge AND acually has the airplane did research on it got explosive specialists to determine that there was no missile and has the black box and the flight ata recorder definatly 2 dumb eye witneses thats for sure watch the video on it ill send the link to whoever wants it.
Airlineboy4590 1 year ago
shot down:Bullshit
Bomb:Bullshit
Faulty Wiring igniting the fuel tank: THE TRUTH!!
fraroc 2 years ago
and how do you now that
golds079 2 years ago
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOLL
grzesieksz 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure there were no high order detonation injuries present in the passengers. Even those sitting over the center tanks showed no evidence of this. Some families asked for private autopsies. None of these showed any high order detonation injuries. In actual cases of high explosives, the damage evidence is overwhelming.
djarum41 2 years ago
completely agree with you well done fine coment
ztavroz007 2 years ago
Really this still has life god 13 years later and people are still dumb enough not to understand the facts.
jeanjones9154 2 years ago
This is absolute rubbish. TWA800 is one of three similar incidents in which a fuel tank ignition caused a sequential detonation sequence which did not compromise the main spa (otherwise the fuselage would've disintegrated). There is an old saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". This is proof positive of that point. I despair for humanity. The CIA and FBI correctly looked at every possible scenario in the criminal domain. Full credit to them for doing their job.
mr2kat 2 years ago 2
Maybe the pilot accidentally hit the cockpit ejector pin when he was scratching his foot .
woodsmin1955 2 years ago
idiot there is no "ejector pin" in a 747-100
william6900 2 years ago
Quiet stupid , I was just trying to be funny .
woodsmin1955 2 years ago
lol i kina figured
william6900 2 years ago
Speculation at best ... but either way you lean, there will NEVER be a definitive answer to this question: Was TWA 800 really shot down.
Conspiracy or not ...
The only thing we DO know, is 230 ppl died a frightening death.
deadspazz 2 years ago
As far as missles go. A witness would have had to have been looking at the right place at the right time. Motor on missle burns for just a second or two then it coasts. They would not have seen any flame rising close to the target.
Mike
mecallahan1 2 years ago
I would have thought that the fuel air mixture in the tank would have been way too rich to burn or explode. Even when "empty" that tank would still have several hundred gallons of fuel in it.
Mike
mecallahan1 2 years ago
This airplane was brought down!!!
butlers2424 2 years ago
TWA flight 800 went down near East Moriches, Long Island...Ironically that was just few miles away from where the FBI had taken pictures of Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammed Salameth, El Sayyid Nosair, Nidal Ayyad, and Clement Rodney Hampton-El at the Calverton Shooting Range firing AK-47'S. For those that don't know, all of them are co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing..all had ties to Al queda.
butlers2424 2 years ago
The explosion took place near row 26, adjacent to the fuel tank...similar to to the terrorist bomb planted by Ramsy Yousef in PAL flight 434. Yousef was the mastermined behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. During the TWA tragedy Yousef was on trial...his attorney argued that the TWA tragedy will prejudice the jury.
butlers2424 2 years ago
Haha!! Idiot conspiracy theorists. You people rival creationists in your stupidity. "So was it shot down? That's down to your personal opinion". No. This flight was not shot down. That is a FACT. Idiots.
PaniacThrilla 2 years ago
Secondly, why do people find it so hard to believe the plane started to climb before stalling?
As the video clearly states, there is a huge loss of mass at the front of the plane which would cause the tail to see-saw down, if the engines were still operating then this would lead to the climb.
dimebagjimmy 2 years ago
Paris to New York distance is around 3500 miles, I fly London to Cape Town (South Africa) on a 747 direct, a distance of 6000 miles.
So to the people saying there is no way TWA 800 didnt have a full tank of fuel, think again.
dimebagjimmy 2 years ago
No missile would twist and turn like those shown in the video, they would beeline towards their target. Maybe it was a missile, maybe not. But there is not enough proof to back the missile theory. Unless someone finds the missile remains, I am reluctant to believe the Conspiracy Theorists' claims of a missile. (Plus CTers love to try to implicate the government any way they can in just about any major event and then bash anyone that disagrees)
TyVulpine 2 years ago
Many anti-aircraft missiles are notorious for sidewinding, even turning, particularly if heat-seeking.
richardcameron 2 years ago 2
I am troubled by many conspiracy theories, but believe there is troubling evidence of a missile supported by the evidence. Explosive residue characteristic of a missile was found inside and out of the plane and confirmed by the FBI. And the percussive blast felt 20 miles away. A gasoline explosion does not travel with sufficient velocity to rattle a bridge, as was the case here. There's an interesting discussion going on here...
TWA Flight 800 Shot Down by Surface-to-Air Missile pt 5 of 6
richardcameron 2 years ago
All I know is the night this happened CNN was interviewing eye witness after eye witness and every single one of them said the exact same thing. A missile rose up and struck the plane then the plane crashed to the ground. Not one witness said anything else. Then the Governmnet says the were all wrong in what they saw. I trust the eye witnesses and not the lieing government. Someone shot this plane down whether it was our government or terrorists who knows.
beatle0001 3 years ago
Have you seen their explanation on Seconds from Disaster? The evidence they show suggests poor wiring caused a spark to ignite the vapor in a nearly empty fuel tank.
NearVSMello 3 years ago
why would a fuel tank be nearly empty in a transatlantic flight???
migo53333 3 years ago
In a plane like that there are actually several sections of the plane used to house fuel. Oftentimes even on transatlantic flights it is not neccessary to fill every last one of them.
NearVSMello 3 years ago
So is there a video of the actual plane being shot down? I really want to see it.
priscillaxoxoxox 3 years ago
No alas there was no video of the incident. If there was no doubt it would have cleared this incident up once and for all.
wiganarebest 3 years ago
Boeing denied in writing what the NTSA claims here; namely, that they gave any credence to the theory that a climb after explosion was possible. It's written response was that Boeing did not see or comment on the video or its contents, and that eyewitnesses would be the best source of the plane's trajectory after the first explosion.
richardcameron 3 years ago
Read the book "First Strike" It explains that there may have been a smaller plane on a collision coarse with TWA800. An easy target for a terrorist attack right before the '96 Olympics. That be a way of getting world wide attention but...could we allow that to be???
muzy67 3 years ago
WELL SAID CHENALOS. Don't worry mate, we all know that TWA 800 WAS hit by a MISSILE.
cc6482 3 years ago
After there was residue of High-explosives found on this plane everyone all across America should have refuesed even the mention of mechanical failure. In not doing so, we have failed the vicitms.
chenalos 3 years ago
ok we found explosives in the plane wrap it up guys (nevermind the fact that this plane was used to train bomb-sniffing dogs, or that the explosives were nowhere near the location of the explosion). Also let's not look at the possibility of a problem in the plane which could happen again anytime, we told you there was RESIDUE OF EXPLOSIVES! oh and a terrorist attack would be very convenient since nobody would have to pay.. now THAT'S
seban678 3 years ago
failing the victims
seban678 3 years ago
Oh, how stupid of me to think that EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE found on a plane's wreckage might have something to do with the fact that it BLEW UP.
You moron.
chenalos 3 years ago
yeah it might.. but in this case it didn't, so suggesting that they should have stopped investigating is just plain stupid
seban678 3 years ago
When did I ever say the investigation should stop? The only thing that should have stopped is anyone accepting mechanical failure after explosive residue was found. Rather, we did accept it. The investigation must be intensified after explosives were discovered.
chenalos 3 years ago
the presence of explosives in the plane was taken into account during the investigation, but it was discarded because it doesn't add up. the official explanation does work, a terrorist attack is very unlikely and a missile is practically out of the question.. btw boeing changed the design of their airplanes afterwards, which i think is a clue.
seban678 3 years ago
If you think that a plane with no nose climbing over a thousand feet at an angle well beyond wing stall is an explanation that makes sense, then we have nothing to discuss.
chenalos 3 years ago
the plane did this anyway, whether there was a bomb or not.. i don't really see your point
seban678 3 years ago
You know nothing about aerodynamics. You know nothing about TWA800. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
chenalos 3 years ago
then explain me.. i'm interested since i'm a private pilot and student in aerospace engineering. why can't an airplane whose center of gravity is displaced far behind the wings and at climbing power go up?
seban678 3 years ago
How can you be a pilot and an aerospace engineer and not know about wing stall?
chenalos 3 years ago
how can i know if there is any wing stall without any data on the attitude or speed of the aircraft? the FDR stopped working at the moment of the explosion... the plane has lost weight when it lost its nose section, and the center of gravity moved backwards, so it seems quite logical to assume it pitched up.. doesn't it?
seban678 3 years ago
No, it doesn't. Even if the fuselage could handle the stress, the pitch up would be too far: Wing Stall in three seconds, too fast for a thousand foot climb.
If the nose section were cleaved off as shown, then you have an open fuselage of a 747 going into 800 kM/h wind. This is a closed fuselage with no vent capable of channeling out the oncoming air. An open-front fuselage going into this kind of thrust would rip to pieces.
Can you see how the Governments model cannot work, now?
chenalos 3 years ago
I'm not so sure about this... the fuselage section surrounding the wings is pretty strong, and i doubt that the stresses induced by the wind would exceed normal pressurization stresses. the aloha 243 flight suffered the loss of a good portion of its fuselage at cruising speed and still the rest of it held up.
seban678 3 years ago
Aloha lost most of it's roof, peeled back to the wing. This was just from wind diverted from a nose section, and it still took out half the plane.
This is a full open fuselage exposing both the cabin and cargo bay to frontal wind. Not to say that at 747 has a wider fuselage than Aloha's 737, meaning that the stress on the craft would be even greater.
Nothing can keep a plane with no nose in the air.
Nothing.
chenalos 3 years ago
aloha was not just because of the wind it blew up because of the inside pressure and metal fatigue.. but that's not the point anyway.
what i don't get is: what do you think happened? regardless of how or why it blew up, the attitude of the plane afterwards isn't what the controversy is about
seban678 3 years ago
That is the center of the controversy. The CIA produced the climb video to explain away reports of s streak of light coming from the horizon, and exploding in the air. The argument is that what eyewitnesses thought was a missile was just 800 going into a flaming climb. Since that is physically impossible (and it is) it proves that the governments claims are a mass-media lie.
We need to re-investigate starting with eyewitness accounts and real data. What really happened?
chenalos 3 years ago
Should have just turned into a huge windsock, filled with air, inducing a pitch up and immediate flat spin to the water. That aircraft would have never climbed another 3000ft.
jbriggs1966 3 years ago 2
failing the victims !
seban678 3 years ago
It was not shot down. This has been dispelled already. And it's a shame that many still believe that despite overwhelming evidence. It matters a lot b/c the cause of that crash could happen on other aircrafts.
There was a short circuit in the wiring system, which ended up in the center fuel tank, thus causing an explosion. Look at the evidence and the conclusion of the NTSB.
Please missile theorists?? Conspiracy theories are just an insult to the families who lost loved ones in the crash.
SWABoy18 3 years ago
In all fairness the theory of the missile is too far-fetched to be taken seriously... there is absolutely NO evidence for it except for eyewitness accounts (which aren't exactly reliable). Damn a missile isn't that easy to hide! it would show up on every radar screen! (and there are a lot in this region). Covering that up would imply a huge conspiracy of silence.. and this is without considering the physical evidence for a technical failure..
seban678 3 years ago
I think it was shot down, a horrible human error that should have just been admitted to and done with. How do you explain the ship that darted away from the scene after the explosion and how do you explain the hidden radar section that would have showed where the missile came from. Plus the residue on the plane matches residue from a missile. A little too coincidental.
donnafpct 4 years ago
It wasn't shot down.
engeladam409 4 years ago
I don't believe that it was shot down but you have to look at it from both perspectives
wiganarebest 4 years ago
the missile is more of a theory where is there is much more evidence to fault in the aircraft.
engeladam409 4 years ago
I know but to please the missile theory believers you have to look at it from their side as well.
wiganarebest 4 years ago
its a electrical problem that made the fuel explode
clonetrooper234 4 years ago
The world is evil.
c6482 4 years ago
amen to that
wiganarebest 4 years ago
navy!
alessandrokaka1 4 years ago
what navy?
clonetrooper234 4 years ago
The U.S supposedly
wiganarebest 4 years ago