fuck, after imagine what those poor people felt and saw few moments before their deaths i think i will never travel to a plain again!!! :/ its so horrible only to imagine, god sake!
read sanders 'the downing of fl0800' - pretty convincing highly technical evidence for missile strike - sanders went to prison for removing airplane parts from hanger - conveniently
dozens of witnesses saw a missile - many of them pilots - center tanks never exploded before or after on 747 - fl 587 was also downed by sabatage right after 9-11
You can't help but think if "they" were able to persuade the U.S. Population that this was a terrorist attack.. maybe we would have stayed in the middle east longer instead of creating 9/11 .. but they failed because the Missile was seen. What exactly is a terrorist now a-days? In the U.S. its pretty much anyone who question's the government. Land of the free my ass.... Wake up people... look through the propaganda.. research Operation Northwoods... GET INFORMED! Its time for a Revolution.
Come on people, use your heads for one second. Do you really think that the Navy would be doing a test that close to a HIGHLY populated area? I don't think so. So that puts to bed the "missile theory". It's a proven fact that eyewitnesses are extremely un-reliable. Don't take my word for it, do your own research and see how witnesses change thier stories, or don't really remember what happened. All that adrenaline during a traumatic event, affects people in different ways.
To all of those who still say they saw a terrorist fire a missle at TWA 800, I believe that the "missle" they saw was the actual plane exploding and rising into the air only to fall.
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! It was accidentally shot down by the Navy.
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.
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.
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.
Btw, hundreds of other eyewitnesses never saw your contrails, and neither did two 737 pilots who stated unequivocally that the explosion came out of no where.
@CrypticGee No way the navy could keep it quiet. And if it was terrorists, they had no reason to lie. It was a fuel vapor explosion. It's happened exactly as the NTSB theorized on at least two other flights. Lookup Phillipine Airlines Flight 143 and Thai International 114. Avianca 203, which was ripped by a bomb igniting fuel vapors, and Pan Am 214, when fuel vapors exploded after a lightning strike, are also relevant.
@somnus71 Any eye witnesses are not going to tell what really happened... you never know. Just look at our government, they have always done shit like this.
By the way, I was a GMM in the navy and saw COUNTLESS contrails just like the one I saw streak towards flight 800. When I saw the video, I said to my girlfriend "I know what that was!" It looked exactly like the dozens of "Standard II" SAM's I saw launch from a Mark 13, mod 4 platform
Within minutes of flight 800 going down, CNN broadcast a video that clearly showed a contrail streaking towards the 747 and an explosion. Immediately after the video, a reporter on the ground was interviewing person after person, all who confirmed seeing a contrail streaking towards flight 800 and an explosion. Then came the government shill. A pretty dark haired woman, mid 30's in a ladies business suit. I am guessing NSA. She said explosion, THEN falling debris. Where's that video now?
This video is a complete fabrication and 100% a lie!
HUNDREDS of eye witnesses said they saw a missile strike the plane. The fuel type used in modern aircraft will not, has not, and never has been vaporized as this video claims!
Am active in the amateur radio service, On the day of the Flight 800 crash I heard employes of Fort Monmouth on the air say ( my GOD we just shot down a passenger plane.) then on day two I heard conversations commenting ( did you see the news their all ready starting the cover up.} I did not record the conversations or the individuals that made the comments. and would not disclose the names even if I remembered them. I also know people in CAP with top clearance that concur with what I have heard
@N2HHH Military would not use any freq. than can be picked up by joe blow nobody. I myself am not in the service, but have many friends that are in, or have served, and all said that any communications can not be picked up on civilian radio. So one of two things here....1. you somehow got ahold of military radios, or 2. your a liar.
Any body can monitor amateur radio frequencies Including (MARS). MARS stands for the (military amateur radio service) At the time there was a mars station at Fort Monmouth. Its perfectly legal to own radios that can receive both amateur radio and mars as well as (CAP) Civil Air Patrol frequencies and if you are licensed by the FCC as I am you can talk back (Transmit) as well. My information was confirmed by one of the heads of CAP. Your friends are misinformed, Sorry.
not sure what happened, but ask yourself: why is the wreckage and all other evidence still classified? Why have the two vietnam helicopter pilots that witnessed the event while flying- and gave very detailed initial accounts indicating a non-fuel related explosion (bomb/missile) - never been heard from subsequently??
first of all,the navy would never be training in a civil air corridor like NYC and even if they were how could they keep an entire crew quiet about it?Secondly,no terrorist group ever claimed responsibilty which is the primary reason for their existence.Therefore,without even examining the empirical evidence of a fuel tank explosion I can conclude that this was indeed an accident.
@rw5791 Finally, someone with a brain and some common sense! I like the guy that said he herd the navy talking about it on the radio....LOL. Yeah because our military just uses standard radio frequencies so anyone can hear what they are doing. I agree with you on this 100%
one day i asked my italian teacher why we couldn't go to Rome kinda as a joke shes a pretty calm chillaxed teacher but then she got so serious and told me it was because on a trip to Rome by plane the class went by passanger plane and with other people not just the school so some kids had to take another flight and 11 students went on twa flight 800 and were killed and im like holy shit :(
This is bullshit. There is no way the 747 could climb with it's front end missing. The plane would have lost its aerodynamic values and dropped out of the sky right away. What a pathetic explanation and pathetic cover up.
The victims families deserve the truth and I really wish somebody had the balls to come forward and talk.
@CommunistsDoRule Too many witnesses from all of Long Island saw the missile strike the plane. Another BS cover-up by our corrupt government. They lied to us then and again on 911 they want us to believe that 3 buildings came down from jet fuel. They are beginning to really have a problem now as more and more people are waking up to the fact that it's all bull.
well, i think we never will find out the cause of the crash.
Was it a missile or a bomb or a spark in the fuel tank? The NTSB said a spark has caused the explosion, other people think its a missile and only a few part thinks that it is a bomb. Well all this 3 possibilitys could be the cause of the disaster. In my opinion the first is the true, but evreyone can believe what he want. Its true that a spark can jump into the fueltank wires, when it has cracked isolation. So why not?
@levelat350 Yea they are too many evidences! Watch the seconds from disaster episode TWA 800 and see: no bomb no missile!!!!!!!! Before the Voice recorder cut off there were two interuptions. Two micro seconds long. That was the spark. It caused a short lose of power. Thanks for your support!
@VaxtesMusic This was long ago solved, it was the first civilian plane we knew of to suffer this but not the first Boeing with the problem, that's why they updated the fleet and the later -400's don't suffer the problem.
a very reliable source told me that there was explosive residue on the aircraft and hinted a stinger was used by a foreign group to do it. i know it sounds incredibly vague, but thats all i can say.
746 people witnessed a streak of what is a missile but are excluded from the cover up and had their stories manipulated. 746 witnesses tossed aside by an administration blaming a spark as their "mechanical" story. 1 cover up and 746 people who say it was a missile - do you still believe it's a "spark"???
@soSiccK so were supposed to believe a few bureauocrats who were not eyewitnesses over the 200 + people who were ? im not saying it was an inside job in that they meant to do it, just that it was a nevy test that went horribly wrong, and that they were too embarrased + worried about lawsuits, so they made up another story
@soSiccK There are more than 700 convergents interviews, books and other more works against the oficial version. A National Geography documentary is so reliable than a coin of 22 cents. And we know around the USA enemies: they are close, very close... Nothing against the missil be launched by own american ship, unfortunately...
The 700+ people were not all witnesses to a pre-explosion streak. That's the total number who saw part of the event. About 20-25% of these saw a streak of light. That means most of the 700 people are not against the official version. Also, if you are going to cover up a US missile, are you going to: 1) declare it a bomb (as Jim kallstrom was about to do); or 2) insist on dredging up every last piece of the plane and drag it out for years?
Well there is Evidence of Friendly Fire... I live in Long Beach (Aircraft on Final for JFK fly low over my house and JFK is pretty close by) and I wasn't old enough to remember but my Parents are friends with Airline Pilots/Workers and they think it was a Missile... also, a lot of people who did somehow witness it recall a Rocket or Missile or something in the distance flying upwards before the crash
@Iceman5164 yea but they discovered that it wasnt a missile. There were 2 photos. One photo shows a mysterios trail in the sky and the other a plane with an other thing, which goes stright ahead to the plan. But at the first picture it wasnt a missile. It was only a pollution. And at the other pic it wasnt TWA 800. It was a Boeing 737 which flew in near of TWA 800.
that would have been fun clinging in your seat in the tail - and then going down nosedive into the ocean - chump chump chump by all of the alligators waiting to eat you alive - nice fresh hot balls of fire!! mmmm
I worked and fueled aircraft for TWA for 21 years. First off the center fuel tank is not used often. there are 7 fuel tanks on the 747. That said, the report is correct that the aircraft didn't have fuel in the center tank. As far as it was a short in the wiring that brought it down. How much did you want for that bridge? The aircraft was shot down by either the military. If I'm wrong what happened to the seats that were logged into the crime scene and later disappeared.
@StainlessSteel58 Nice to know our tax dollars are at work for the government to cover this up eh? This is why I NEVER leave the house without a gun. They are going to have to bleed if they want to take me.
@StainlessSteel58 Stop talking out of your ass and open your eyes. There was absolutley NO conspiracy. It's completley possible for fuel vapors to blow up if faulty wiring reached the tank. They even gave the new 747-800s and existing -400 models the devices which nullify the effects. The eyewitnesses saw not a missle, but the final moments of TWA Flight 800 as it blows up, rising to the air while exploding.
What a crock of shit! This was a missile! I know many, many people who were on the water that day, from Fisherman to Coast Guard Crewmen that were out of the Hampton bays Station. The truth will come out one day!
@oganmy9 ok mr terrorist if you believe it was a missle then tell us exactly where the plane is right now - was it just a missle and missed the flight or was it a missle shot somewhere else
@cabanaboi29 When did I ever ssay it was a Terrorist? How about looking into weapons testing in the area? Look at the number of United States Military Warships that were in the area at the time. When you're done figuring that one out, how about you read up on the local airport radar reports ... If you have a counterpoint please make it, and make it clear, because your response is vague at best.
@cchris874 I should believe them like everyone believed the EPA after 9-11? You can take all the information a government agency releases and all their findings and you still have nothing but your own instincts to rely on. In this case I stated why I don't believe them.
You're right. Instincts are sometimes necessary, especially in technical reports. Let's take for granted we can't trust anything in a government report. The same is true, far more true IMO, of CT theories, anonymous testimonies and internet web sites in general. Where does that leave us? My instinct tells me if this were a Navy missile, they would have declared it a bomb,as Jim Kallstrom was within hours of doing. Not insisting on dredging up every last piece of wreckage.
@cchris874 Because it contradicts all sense and logic. It was much too obvious that a desperate cover up was in place. Secondly, a plane cannot fly and keep ascending for 4000 feet without its nose. Its simply not possible. When government goes as far as defeating the simplest physics then you know the situation is really bad. Don't forget that they also dismissed hundreds of witnesses and did not allow them to testify because it would uncover too much.
Thanks. I've read all this multiple times. I believe you're right about the zoom climb. It seems -the little that's been published - to have "defied" physics. I suggest the reason for it was to make the CT brigade shut the f up, because they were hurting the NTSB's credibity. Not because there actually WAS a missile.
While on the subject of physics, maintaining that streak of light was a missile also seems to defy physics, given the timing is all off. See Fritz Meyer's comments
By the way, do you know who has been on the board of directors of the National Geographic Society? Lady Bird Johnson, Think, LBJ the president after Kennedy. That should answer some questions for you as well. I WILL NEVER BELIEVE THE STATE STORY OF TWA 800. Unless, they come up with a more plausible explanation for what happened. Fuel exploding, give me a break, with a full tank of fuel, try again, I'm watching you!!! Too rich to burn, too lean to burn. Ring any bells? Work the numbers yourself.
I believe this was a case of mistaken identity. There is no way that the main tank that is used for weight and balance would be empty at this time. I believe the streak of light was just that, Missile, shoulder fired weapon, whatever. A streak of light that impacted TWA 800. This movie clip is only showing what the government wants you to see. NGS. has long history with association with the government, you need to judge for yourselves. Please never let me stand in your way, judge for yourselves!
Lets see, a flight from New York to France, 12 minutes after takeoff with nearly empty tanks, not even close. YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT!! The tanks should have been almost full. You just want us to believe that this is what happened. Sorry, I will never watch or believe anything that the NGS has to say ever again. A/C packs don't generate that much heat for one thing. 12 minutes into a flight with the main tank that is used for weight and balance EMPTY???? Who are you trying to get over on? Walk On!!
@lcr7892 I am sorry anyone had, and has, to contend with a loss in the way that your family does. I imagine it's a small consolation, but I will say it anyway. From the time wreckage was loaded onto the trucks at the Hampton Bays Coast Guard Station and throughout the journey the hanger at Calverton the people along the route paid tribute to the lost souls of that flight. Most of us didn't know anyone on board but for some reason we knew we lost something.
@biscuitag97 A plane didn't just "crash", if you watched the video you'd realize that a plane crashed with over 200 people on board. No one should just "get over it", it was a tragedy and many people lost family and friends on that day. So next time don't call people "fags" for possesing something that you clearly don't have; a heart and a functioning brain. You are a disgrace to the human race, and have disrespected everyone who was affected by or lost someone in this, or any other plane crash.
I live right on Long Island and I remember driving to the beach in center moriches and you could see parts of the crash floating up on the shore and everyone on there boats going out to the wreck...it was horrible...may they rest in peace!
Unlimited energy sources are out there!But the Establishment doesn't want ppl to know this,Get a real free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be a part of the energy revolution!
Your lack of effort is due to the fact that you don't understand how to evaluate evidence like a scientist or a scholar. That's fine for Youtube, but some of us have slightly higher standards. What scientist would blurt out "FUSSELAGE" when Meyer explicitly said "I never saw an airframe." ? You got it 180 degrees wrong. And now you want to convince me you know facts? Do yourself a favor and have nice plate of
Dear Youtube Scholar Extraordinaire, please google "and we all three said, about 10 seconds"
In his NTSB interview Mr. Meyer also stated he never saw an airplane, much less "fuselage."
-
You have to master the details if you want to have any hope of getting at the truth, a task you seem uninterested in. This is another example why I am done doing this exercise with you.
Can you explain why Major Fritz Meyer and his co-pilot both stated only 10-12 seconds elapsed from the end of the streak of light to seeing the massive fireball fall to the ocean? The whole event took just 10 seconds? This is a sticking point for me.
There you have it, folks. Someone who will not engage in the give and take of good-natured discussion, who refuses to have a real discussion about altitude, explosives traces, chemical residue, etc etc. . . and who just spins up fake quotes out of thin air, like Fritz Meyer's seeing the FUSELAGE get hit (why it is that non-existent quotes get upper case is anyone's guess.) That's youtube for you.
What you fail to understand is that an ascending streak of light has at least one other plausible explanation: a burning streak of fuel shooting upwards seconds before the fireball appeared. Why is your explanation better?
-
2nd, the evidence tampering is all explained by William Tobin. Please read him!!: the FBI took parts away because precisely because they WANTED to find the smoking gun explosives evidence.
Again, you need to review the concept of counter evidence.
@cchris874 Your statements are bizarre and completely illogical. You are citing FBI's public statements that have been later dropped. It was not just a few who saw a streak of light, it were hundreds of witnesses. Why did FBI dismiss all their statements and did not let them testify in court? Official videos of crippled flight were nonsense. You cannot defy physics in such a lame manner. Lastly, according to the official story all 747's are deadly and should not be flown.
"Your statements are bizarre and completely illogical"
Which ones? I agree the zoom climb was nonsense. That doesn't mean a missile did it.
I can't speak to the FBI, but the NTSB did not dismiss all the witnesses.
"all 747s are deadly. . . . " the latest study on this guesses that about one out of 140 million flights will suffer a CWT explosion. So the NTSB merely concluded f800 was one chance in about 140 million. That sounds pretty safe to me.
"Your statements are bizarre and completely illogical"
Which ones? I agree the zoom climb was nonsense. That doesn't mean a missile did it.
I can't speak to the FBI, but the NTSB did not dismiss all the witnesses.
"all 747s are deadly. . . . " the latest study on this guesses that about one out of 140 million flights will suffer a CWT explosion. So the NTSB merely concluded f800 was one chance in about 140 million. That sounds pretty safe to me.
Your evidence? What, a bunch of people see a streak of light? LOL You have no proof, unless you want to include the red/orange sample that Sanders admits on page 153 of Altered Evidence wasn't a positive match with rocket fuel. Most of the explosives traces were false positives, but a few were genuine. Doesn't prove anything when you have no inward bent metal, and no high velocity penetrations. The few traces were probably contaminants from bomb experts after they examined parts.
The same is true of the missile theory. Your idea of hard evidence is fantasy: Basically, a bunch of people see a streak of light. Some proof.
-
As mentioned there is nothing resembling a proof that the red/orange residue was rocket fuel. The source is anonymous (a la Sanders), and even it states "inconclusive." As for the mystery blip on radar, I've seen the pictures, and far from merging w 800, they show it actually moving AWAY from it in the final seconds before 8:31:12.
Hard evidence for a specific mechanical scenario is not really possible because the kind of event the NTSB thinks happened would not be likely to leave many traces, and indeed would most likely have been destroyed in the explosion. The case rests on probability, and by carefully noting the absence of many things which would have most likely been found had their been a missile.
I don't see how you can think the FBI seriously tried to cover up the existence of explosives traces because, contrary to what you and most CTists say, the FBI wanted desparately to declare the accident sabotage, just like you. It was only when cooler minds prevailed and the NTSB was allowed to finish its job did they finally realize there just wasn't enough evidence to support either a bomb or missile.
Yes, I can't find the index because there isn't one. If you want to make a credible case "missile parts" were hidden, please give a page # whre I can read it, or give us a named source, not one of Sanders' many anonymous sources that can't be checked.
Any evidence that points away from missile and bomb is, by default, evidence that strengthens mechanical cause. So when I give you evidence F800 was already broken apart by the time streaks were seen, that is a first start. But you, not understanding the nature of evidence, couldn't see this. Like I said, I'm 10 steps ahead of you.
-
"he DOES use indexes"
He absolutely DOES NOT. I have both books in front of me. Please tell us, dear liar, what pages they start on.
Please provide page #s or otherwise identifiy the source of the hidden missile parts claim. Your hero James Sanders doesn't believe in putting indexes in his books, so I have no way to find it w/o rereading both books.
The part about missile parts being hidden? OK, I don't have a photographic memory, but I'll have a look again in those books. St. Sanders has a habit of giving anonymous sources, which I'm sure is the equivalent of onteological certitude to you.
-
"YOUR evidence"
- I've already given you names reports and sources for lots of stuff that supports my theory, but you don't have the slightest interest it. Why don't we start with the altitude of F800.
The altering of wreckage was hardly covered up. The NTSB made it be known in sworn testimony they weren't happy about it - now why would they say this to the world if they were part of the cover-up? Once again, that devil called counter evidence, which according to you doesn't exist. The reason the FBI altered and took away parts is they were dying to take over the investigation and declare it an act of sabotage.
@TheMscrp I didn't know we were dating honey bunny!! You think a guy like Bob Swain (Metallurgist) is going to throw out a 10 year education and esteemed career (he has worked on many crashes) by doctoring up some bullshit story and handing it over to Jim Kalstrom and every one goes for a beer and a giggle?? All the metallurgy shows ripped metal splayed OUTWARD from an overpressure event INSIDE the plane. The center tank was almost empty. EXTREMELY volatile situation.
@TheMscrp I am sorry but i have to side with Jim Kalstrom of the FBI when he said. "If a missile hit the plane it would have been obliterated we would not be looking at dollar sized pieces of wreckage and saying.. GEE I WONDER.. it would smack you across the face it would be so obvious".. Have you seen the metallurgist report? Witness marks on the forward spar of the fuel tank showing the rear spar rotated forward and hit it. From an overpressure event... AN EXPLOSION!!
Finally you got something right. You are a waste of time because you don't engage in dialogue - you and dismiss evidence, you don't want any real discussion. Like, where's your source for 36 witnesses seeing one object strike another? Your made up quote that Meyer saw a missile hit the FUSELAGE? Did you just dream that up, or what?
I'm always amazed how Big Shots are usually the biggest losers.
O jees, that's the one by Sanders, isn't it? If so, I saw that years ago - I even bought it on video, I'm embarrassed to say. OK, it's interesting. But it doesn't deal with all the counter evidence. It's a one sided picture only. You can make a case TWA800 was hit by a missile, sure. But you can also make a case that it wasn't. Sometimes things aren't what they 1st seem. This is one of them.
"No one except you has mentioned this "8000ft factor." "
Wrong. That's what happens when all you feed yourself is one side of an argument. It shouldn't take long to find the page I got this from for yourself - if you are even curious. It's also confirmed by infrared satelite, and all those witnesses in exhibit 4A. OK, just damn and dismiss it all away, like Mr. Sanders does. Every new post confirms to me you don't know the 800 arguments as well as I do.
Your posts are a scholarly joke. As Judge Judy likes to say, I'm 10 steps ahead of you. I've read more on the subject than you, including the Cashill/Sanders book you've never heard of, and the Cap Parlier book. I know the subject inside and out, as I once was a somewhat reluctant believer in the missile theory. So I know exactly where you're coming from. You're making all the mistakes and pitfalls all the other die-hard CTists make. They see only in black and white.
The one he wrote with Jim Sanders, "First Strike." It seems Mr. Sanders endorses Cashill's theory that there was BOTH a navy missile AND a terrorist airplane involved. Please tell me you don't take THAT theory seriously, or the theory there were "at least three missiles" according to Donaldson. Who knows, perhaps there were 10 or 20 missiles. It's the guys YOU trust who will stop at nothing to push absurd theories on a guullible readership.
OK, we've established YOU are the one who doesn't read things carefully, just as was the case with Sanders' books. So am I surprised that you ignore or don't carefully read the AIRBORNE witness matrix? Of all THOSE witnesses there emerged a consensus that F800 was below 8,000 ft when it was seen exploding.
-
I am aware that few witnesses claim one object hit another. But 36? I've never seen that. I challenge you to give the source for that.
Sorry, but Major Meyer never said he SAW a fuselage, much less an airplane being hit. He ASSUMED it was AFTER he heard the news. What he ACTUALLY said is this: "I saw a streak of light. . . . There was a break - where it stopped - and then for an instanrt I saw nothing. And then suddenly right there I saw an explosion - high velocity explosion -military ordnance!"
-
Never any mention of SEEING an airplane. He's speculating, combining raw observation with the news story he heard.
If I may say so, I would guess one of your chief roadblocks in taking a serious look at counter evidence is you start with the presumption that the streak of light HAD to be a missile, end of discussion. That's not how the scientific method is supposed to work. Why couldn't the streak of light have been a burning stream of fuel, or omni-directional explosion from which the huge fireball then erupted?
-
As for cover-up, please see William Tobin's sworn testimony.
In addition we have Fritz Meyer, whose account indicates the fireball fell to the ocean in just 10 seconds. The streak he saw ended in not more than about 4 seconds before the fireball began. Yet if the initiating event was this streak, are we to believe F800 plummeted over 13,000 in 10 seconds? Of course not.
-
We also have the Eastwind pilot whose time stamped message to ATC indiactes no ascending object, and an explosion much later than 8:31:12.
If you want a direct quote from an airborne witness, try Sven Faret & Ken Wendell. They were flying at 7,700 ft and reported that the explosions all happened below them, and no fire was ever visible above them. I trust your internet sourcing skills are sufficient to confirm this for yourself.
For the altitude of F800's 1st visible explosion, the NTSB produced an airborne witness matrix. About a dozen gave altitude estimates. Of those that gave a specific altitude range, all put it between 3-8,000 ft . Source: NTSB exhibit 4A
When you are interested in having a seriosu discussion, let me know. I brought up an important point for discussion (which has nothing to do with government reports BTW). Instead of having a reasonable conversation, your more interested in saying f off, or your an idiot. OK, got it.
Let's see if we can ignite a real discussion. Do you agree F800 was already below 8,000 ft when the major fireball became visible to the streak witnesses? Would you like a source? Let me know.
Now what you should do, IMO, is come to grips with some facts the 800 CT crowd doesn't want you to know, prime among them: the plane was already below 8,000 ft and over 30 seconds into its earthward plunge when the fireball became visible. This is amply confirmed by airborne witnesses. Yet the streak witnesses say this explosion happened immediately or within a few seconds of the end of the streak.
At the very least this is called mixed evidence. If you are scientifically inclined, which seems highly doubtful, you would acknowlegde that there is contradictory evidence for a missile, and that the chemical "proof" we were talking about is yet another example. This is why Sanders back-peddled and changed his "proof" into a merely "consistent with." Well, by that lamer standard the FBI also proved it was glue, I guess.
"Sander's books are all about one thing: Uncovering the fact of a. . . cover-up."
-
Irrelevant. What a book is about doesn't guarantee its honesty or integrity. Sanders is not one's idea of a scholarly truth teller - I have no doubt he really believes in a cover-up. But it can't erase his opportunism. His assertion of PROOF of missile residue in his 1st book came back to haunt him, so he then claims in book #2 (lies, as CTists would put it) that he never said such thing!!
I don't need any logic explained to me. If you read pp152-3 of "Altered Evidence" in their entirety, you would know that Sanders AGREES with NORTHINGTON's view of the chemical analysis of the red residue sample. It was INCONCLUSIVE. On p153 Sanders states that Kallstrom misquoted him by telling the media Sanders had "conclusive" evidence.
Now lets stop here for a moment. Do you agree with the above summary so far? AQ simple yes or no would be nice. Thanks
If you really did read his books carefully then you would know that what I stated is 100% correct. I gave you the quotes and the page numbers an/or chapters. Please tell me which ones are wrong and I will happily correct it. Thanks.
So I reluctantly cocluded that F800 was an acident just as the NTSB states. Much more recently another tests was done simulating the condition of the fuel tank of F800 which caused a major explosion with a small spark. This further makes their case credible.
-
To me, the biggest problem with CT theorists is their inability to see how some events are elusive, and where you can make a plausible case for competing theories. Instead, they always see in black and white.
Sanders cont'd. The point is this. When Sanders 1st got hold of the chemical evidence he pushed it on his readers as "proof of a missile." Then, when the media ridiculed him for claiming proof, he did a nice clean-up act and admits that the evidence fell short of a proof.
-
As far as my opinion on F800, I thought for the longest time it was a missile. The turning point came when I realized F800 had fallen for 30 seconds or more before it was seen exploding.
Why not? You're claiming, by implication, everyone at the NTSB is stupid enough to have published a big lie.So the NTSB makes huge mistakes, but Sanders doesn't. Did I get that right?
-
OK, as far as that quote, this shows again the lame level of scholarship of youtube. YES, this is what someone else said, but on the next page Sanders agrees with it !! Do you not read the books you recommend?
Well, you have the source yourself, according to you: "Altered Evidence" p152, and I quote Sanders directly "NORTHINGTON specifically informed SANDERS that. . . there was no conclusive evidence [of] rocket propellent."
Now in his 1st book, "The Downing of F800," chapter 11 is titled "Hard Evidence: Missile Residue," where he goes on to say "I knew I had the proof."
Wow. "Proof" in book one becomes non-proof in book 2. He's no less of a liar than the government propogandists !
I just looked that one up to refresh the memory. His statement could possibly indicate missile, just as it could indicate streak of burning fuel. He doesn't identify what the 2nd object was. And: once again, here's a witness who contradicts the accident timetable, as this fireball did not happen until more than 30 seconds after the time of an alleged missile strike. Not one second, as 649 claims.
Translation: inconclusive at best with likely contradiction.
con'td. I mean, just how stupid do you envision them? Or is it possible that maybe you exagerrate a bit? That maybe this notion of a "PROJECTILE was SEEN hitting TWA800" is YOU looking at a picture, or hearing about one or two isolated witness making an extravagant claim, and then that metamorphasizes into a positive proof? Again, SHOW us the picture, show us a video, show us more than a fanciful witness such as Lisa Perry. Do you undersatand what "proof" is?
Show me. From what I've seen only a handful of the many 100s of eyewitnesses claim to have seen F800 being hit. And a few, like Lisa Perry, are clearly far-fetched.
Why do people like yourself expect to convince anyone of anything by going that step too far off the deep end, where NTSB senior investigators are not just part of a cover-up, but by implication, also utterly stupid morons who lack the alleged common sense you do?
That can't be the only site with that photo. If you find another link let me know.
Again, if they wanted a nice cover-up, why did they drag the investigation on for four years and not instead declare it a bomb? After all they had all those false positives initially. Would have worked fine and been much less suspicious. And less expensive. They would have just let Mr. Kallstrom deliver that press conference he was about to give on August 14th declaring it a bomb.
It's a question of probability, since I agree there is no absolute hard proof of mechanical. But make no mistake, there is nothing remotely resembling a proof of a shoot down either. How probable depends on how skillfully you analyze the evidence. In the book you mention, Sanders goes out of his way to say the chemical evidence was not a positive proof of anything. But in his first book, he says otherwise. You can just never trust those CTist - just as bad as the media!!!
I'm getting the site, but no photos, even using their search box. If I did see the photo, would it positively rule out a streak of burning jet fuel arcing upwards from the beginning of the major fireball, an "omni-directional explosion" in William Tobin's words? This positive differentiation is not what I'm seeing in the vast majority of streak witnesses. The evidence is very conflicting at best, and at worst contradicting the timetable of the break-up sequence.
- I agree the zoom climb didn't happen. It was a stupid public relations move to quell rising doubt, IMO. The goal was not to cover-up, but to maintain the NTSB's credibility. At least that's a plausible scenario in the face of the world's first big out-of-control internet CT. The streak of light was in all likelihood the beginning sequence of the fireball, producing an omni-directional streak/s of burning fuel.
Honestly, I'm not the type of person to beleve in conspiracies. However, this seems fishy. I've heard some of the witnesses and I believe what they are saying about the missle is rock sollid. The fact the the FBI wouldn't take the information from the witnesses proves that they are hiding something So yes, Cover up makes sense.
By the way I was very young when this happened. If there's something that's incorrect about what I said Please tell me I'd like to know
There are conflicting stories about all this. The NTSB certainly collected 100s of reports, and are in the final report. The FBI did lots of things that were out of step. But keep in mind they were absolutely dying to declare this accident a bomb - Jim Kallstrom was about to announce this at a press conference until William Tobin -their chief metallurgist - told him to shut the f up. This is all very odd for an alleged cover-up.
Faulty wirring, lol I smell Bullshit. I watched it live on CNN and it was a missile clear as day, you could even see the tracker activating as the missile adjusted its course and locked onto the plane, you could see clearly the missile trail from its launch position in the ocean. Government of the people for the people my ass. Those people were murdered and you could choke on the proof and if not why hide the CNN footage viewed by thousands? Because it clearly shows a missile strike.
You saw a VIDEO of the missile on CNN? That's news to me.
F800 - if this were a cover-up, the logical course of events would be to halt the recovery of wreckage, have the FBI take over (to avoid the necessity of a lengthy NTSB report) and simply declare it a bomb - as was the FBI on the verge of doing until William Tobin intervened. Instead, we asre to believe the government insisted on dredging up 95% of the wreckage and come up with a mechanical freak accident. BS, IMO.
@cchris874 The whole nation saw that video, check the web sites on flt 800. The video ran for about four hours in a top news loop and then it was taken off the air, never to be seen again. I will never forget it, you could clearly see the missile adjust its course and strike the plane. There are just way to many witnesses to the event and like 911 we know it is BS but hell if we can do anything about it. In the case of Flt. 800 the truth is just way to expensive.
@cchris874 No Sir, I am saying that on eye witness sites you'll find plenty of reports from those who saw the same footage that day on CNN. The footage was taken off of the air and never seen again by anyone. The problem is that well over a hundred thousand people saw the initial footage that ran for about 40 seconds every half hour, then three or four hours later it was gone never to be shown again. I shit you not, a missile hit that plane clear as day and I'll never forget what I saw that day.
Thanks. I looked into it, and it seems you are correct. I came across an artilce by Jack Cashill who also did not see it, but heard about it from many others like yourself. It goes some way in explaining why so many people were (and still are) of the belief something was covered up. But this raise more questions than it answers, to me at least. 1st, all such footage is archived, not just by the networks themselves, but by no doubt countless people with a VCR .
@cchris874 I thought the same as you did but after 911 I learned that the media does as it is told, just like Russian media. The coverage was in the late morning to early afternoon and most like myself thought it would run for 24 hours at least. On 911 I recorded everything because of Flt. 800, don't think it's not all related because it is. The first casualty of war is the TRUTH.................. Be well
Flight 800 is one thing, and I am willing to consider a missile as a serious, even if very unlikely, possibility. But 911 , for me, goes off the deepest of deep ends, at least as far as the MIHOP crowd is concerned. I don't understand why such people find the unpeered review, unscholarly articles preferable to the peer reviewed and scholarly ones. Can you explain this? Because everything they say has been answered by far more credible experts then people like Steve Jones.
@cchris874 With 911 stick with the law of physics and check out scholars for 911 truth. You must know of WTC 7? Very real experts in structural engineering, architecture, science and physics, fire proffessionals, demolition experts and fighter jet pilots all say the events of 911 defy logic. Buildings do not collapse at free fall speed and even if the did the would not vaporize concrete to particles under 100 microns, only a volcano could do that.
This is one side of the story only. And it comes primarily from unpeer reviewed unscholarly sources. By contrast, the debunkers rely, in genereal, on more reliable categories of evidence and have now published may peer review articles. By contrast, the inside job crowd has almost nothing in peer review form. Why are you of the view that the best way to have an informed opinion is to choose the least reliable, least peer-reviewed form evidence and articles?
So, why has nothing surfaced since? It seems nearly impossible to believe that a smoking gun of this nature, floating around on VCRs in living rooms throughout the US, has not been Youtubed or otherwise posted in 14 years. 2nd, since there is little doubt in my mind that there was indeed one or more streaks of light preceding the fireball, which would have appeared to be rising to some witnesses, what does this tell us that we don't already know?
The answer is, it almost certainly did not fly upwards. The purpose of this scenario, however, was just to put a lid on all the conspiracy talk. It worked. It had nothing to do with an actual cover-up. Just my HO.
flight 180 was based on this crash.
abraman12 10 hours ago
Right after this plane went down, there was another flight that went down off the NE coast just north of here.
The witnesses to 800 said that they saw a reddish orange flare ascending toward the plane and then it turned into a huge red ball.
So we have Lockerbee Scotland, 800, and several others, including the one of the coast of Maine and New Hampshire, and then 9-11.
But this wasn't terrorism....nah.....
bashfulbrother 2 weeks ago
fuck, after imagine what those poor people felt and saw few moments before their deaths i think i will never travel to a plain again!!! :/ its so horrible only to imagine, god sake!
Titaniumomeega 3 weeks ago
its crazy how this crash inspired Jeff Riddick to make final destination
cesarmanuel51 1 month ago
Final destination 1 was based on this, the flight exploding, going to Paris, and students on a field trip were going to France.
MegaPawnch 2 months ago
read sanders 'the downing of fl0800' - pretty convincing highly technical evidence for missile strike - sanders went to prison for removing airplane parts from hanger - conveniently
egeek10 2 months ago
dozens of witnesses saw a missile - many of them pilots - center tanks never exploded before or after on 747 - fl 587 was also downed by sabatage right after 9-11
egeek10 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL! It's funny because everyone died. ;D
tak3808 3 months ago
@tak3808 How is that funny? That was horrible!
SAMCAMJAIK1 2 months ago
You can't help but think if "they" were able to persuade the U.S. Population that this was a terrorist attack.. maybe we would have stayed in the middle east longer instead of creating 9/11 .. but they failed because the Missile was seen. What exactly is a terrorist now a-days? In the U.S. its pretty much anyone who question's the government. Land of the free my ass.... Wake up people... look through the propaganda.. research Operation Northwoods... GET INFORMED! Its time for a Revolution.
10TC55 3 months ago
Come on people, use your heads for one second. Do you really think that the Navy would be doing a test that close to a HIGHLY populated area? I don't think so. So that puts to bed the "missile theory". It's a proven fact that eyewitnesses are extremely un-reliable. Don't take my word for it, do your own research and see how witnesses change thier stories, or don't really remember what happened. All that adrenaline during a traumatic event, affects people in different ways.
pitt15220 3 months ago
Why didn't the government admit it anyways?
kalvin197 3 months ago
To all of those who still say they saw a terrorist fire a missle at TWA 800, I believe that the "missle" they saw was the actual plane exploding and rising into the air only to fall.
fraroc 4 months ago
thats wy airplanes in the night sky should not be shooting stars
fsx777pilot 4 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! It was accidentally shot down by the Navy.
OneHoof 4 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 4 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 4 months ago
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 4 months ago
Anyone see Final Destination, and search this up after??
TheGoddamnBatman100 4 months ago 2
flight 180 from Final Destination is based on flight 800. True story!
skfeen12345678 4 months ago
@skfeen12345678 Alot of the things from final destination are based on true stories!
BronxPrincess625 4 months ago
same plane used in fd1, same explosion as in fd1
adamajid9mods 4 months ago
Final Destination Brought me here
noscirenamra 4 months ago
No bomb, no missile, no mechanical malfunction .....
..... it was Death's Design!!
omalor 5 months ago 4
Btw, hundreds of other eyewitnesses never saw your contrails, and neither did two 737 pilots who stated unequivocally that the explosion came out of no where.
somnus71 5 months ago
@CrypticGee No way the navy could keep it quiet. And if it was terrorists, they had no reason to lie. It was a fuel vapor explosion. It's happened exactly as the NTSB theorized on at least two other flights. Lookup Phillipine Airlines Flight 143 and Thai International 114. Avianca 203, which was ripped by a bomb igniting fuel vapors, and Pan Am 214, when fuel vapors exploded after a lightning strike, are also relevant.
somnus71 5 months ago
@ANPMTG Uh, the helicopter pilots never said they saw a misile. In fact, they're interviewed on another documentary on this same website.
somnus71 5 months ago
@somnus71 Any eye witnesses are not going to tell what really happened... you never know. Just look at our government, they have always done shit like this.
BattlefieldPoo 5 months ago
By the way, I was a GMM in the navy and saw COUNTLESS contrails just like the one I saw streak towards flight 800. When I saw the video, I said to my girlfriend "I know what that was!" It looked exactly like the dozens of "Standard II" SAM's I saw launch from a Mark 13, mod 4 platform
CrypticGee 6 months ago
Within minutes of flight 800 going down, CNN broadcast a video that clearly showed a contrail streaking towards the 747 and an explosion. Immediately after the video, a reporter on the ground was interviewing person after person, all who confirmed seeing a contrail streaking towards flight 800 and an explosion. Then came the government shill. A pretty dark haired woman, mid 30's in a ladies business suit. I am guessing NSA. She said explosion, THEN falling debris. Where's that video now?
CrypticGee 6 months ago
This video is a complete fabrication and 100% a lie!
HUNDREDS of eye witnesses said they saw a missile strike the plane. The fuel type used in modern aircraft will not, has not, and never has been vaporized as this video claims!
kanukster 6 months ago
Am active in the amateur radio service, On the day of the Flight 800 crash I heard employes of Fort Monmouth on the air say ( my GOD we just shot down a passenger plane.) then on day two I heard conversations commenting ( did you see the news their all ready starting the cover up.} I did not record the conversations or the individuals that made the comments. and would not disclose the names even if I remembered them. I also know people in CAP with top clearance that concur with what I have heard
N2HHH 6 months ago
@N2HHH Military would not use any freq. than can be picked up by joe blow nobody. I myself am not in the service, but have many friends that are in, or have served, and all said that any communications can not be picked up on civilian radio. So one of two things here....1. you somehow got ahold of military radios, or 2. your a liar.
pitt15220 3 months ago
@pitt15220 Hello Pitt15220
Any body can monitor amateur radio frequencies Including (MARS). MARS stands for the (military amateur radio service) At the time there was a mars station at Fort Monmouth. Its perfectly legal to own radios that can receive both amateur radio and mars as well as (CAP) Civil Air Patrol frequencies and if you are licensed by the FCC as I am you can talk back (Transmit) as well. My information was confirmed by one of the heads of CAP. Your friends are misinformed, Sorry.
N2HHH 3 months ago
@N2HHH One correction MARS is the (Military Auxiliary Radio System) MARS. Wikipedia has a good page on MARS.
Look it up and enjoy.
By the way collecting Military radios is an active hobby, am not into it. I don't have the space or interest.
All the best To you and your family.
N2HHH 3 months ago
not sure what happened, but ask yourself: why is the wreckage and all other evidence still classified? Why have the two vietnam helicopter pilots that witnessed the event while flying- and gave very detailed initial accounts indicating a non-fuel related explosion (bomb/missile) - never been heard from subsequently??
ANPMTG 6 months ago
first of all,the navy would never be training in a civil air corridor like NYC and even if they were how could they keep an entire crew quiet about it?Secondly,no terrorist group ever claimed responsibilty which is the primary reason for their existence.Therefore,without even examining the empirical evidence of a fuel tank explosion I can conclude that this was indeed an accident.
rw5791 6 months ago
@rw5791 Finally, someone with a brain and some common sense! I like the guy that said he herd the navy talking about it on the radio....LOL. Yeah because our military just uses standard radio frequencies so anyone can hear what they are doing. I agree with you on this 100%
pitt15220 3 months ago
one day i asked my italian teacher why we couldn't go to Rome kinda as a joke shes a pretty calm chillaxed teacher but then she got so serious and told me it was because on a trip to Rome by plane the class went by passanger plane and with other people not just the school so some kids had to take another flight and 11 students went on twa flight 800 and were killed and im like holy shit :(
peterganna 6 months ago
any one have a phobia of flights
mquiroz90 6 months ago
This is bullshit. There is no way the 747 could climb with it's front end missing. The plane would have lost its aerodynamic values and dropped out of the sky right away. What a pathetic explanation and pathetic cover up.
The victims families deserve the truth and I really wish somebody had the balls to come forward and talk.
CommunistsDoRule 6 months ago
@CommunistsDoRule Too many witnesses from all of Long Island saw the missile strike the plane. Another BS cover-up by our corrupt government. They lied to us then and again on 911 they want us to believe that 3 buildings came down from jet fuel. They are beginning to really have a problem now as more and more people are waking up to the fact that it's all bull.
VinnieSutra 6 months ago
NIght Fall is written by Nelson Demille
GlendaGosey 7 months ago
well, i think we never will find out the cause of the crash.
Was it a missile or a bomb or a spark in the fuel tank? The NTSB said a spark has caused the explosion, other people think its a missile and only a few part thinks that it is a bomb. Well all this 3 possibilitys could be the cause of the disaster. In my opinion the first is the true, but evreyone can believe what he want. Its true that a spark can jump into the fueltank wires, when it has cracked isolation. So why not?
VaxtesMusic 7 months ago 14
@VaxtesMusic I say it's a spark too
levelat350 6 months ago
@levelat350 Yea they are too many evidences! Watch the seconds from disaster episode TWA 800 and see: no bomb no missile!!!!!!!! Before the Voice recorder cut off there were two interuptions. Two micro seconds long. That was the spark. It caused a short lose of power. Thanks for your support!
VaxtesMusic 6 months ago
@VaxtesMusic it was enginering mistake
mohammed1999ful 5 months ago
@VaxtesMusic This was long ago solved, it was the first civilian plane we knew of to suffer this but not the first Boeing with the problem, that's why they updated the fleet and the later -400's don't suffer the problem.
jboweruk 3 months ago
@jboweruk or mabye it was death from final destination. its possible
novasfunny23 3 months ago
Shoot. Just imagining how it feels to be inside it makes my heart beat faster. o:
SNSDx2PM 8 months ago
just terrible
sanyo51 8 months ago
This is still my all-time favorite air crash case
defenderoFreedom 8 months ago
a very reliable source told me that there was explosive residue on the aircraft and hinted a stinger was used by a foreign group to do it. i know it sounds incredibly vague, but thats all i can say.
kingsalamander123 8 months ago
If you want a good book about this (Realistic Fiction), then read Night Fall, but I don't remember the author.
expressyourself2222 8 months ago
746 people witnessed a streak of what is a missile but are excluded from the cover up and had their stories manipulated. 746 witnesses tossed aside by an administration blaming a spark as their "mechanical" story. 1 cover up and 746 people who say it was a missile - do you still believe it's a "spark"???
strizhi 9 months ago 2
@strizhi
"746 people witnesses a streak"
Wrong. Yes, it was spark most likely.
cchris874 9 months ago
Now TWA 800 an inside job? Really? You conspiracy theorists need to move out of your parents basements and get some sunlight.
soSiccK 10 months ago 8
@soSiccK so were supposed to believe a few bureauocrats who were not eyewitnesses over the 200 + people who were ? im not saying it was an inside job in that they meant to do it, just that it was a nevy test that went horribly wrong, and that they were too embarrased + worried about lawsuits, so they made up another story
hypertom95 9 months ago
@hypertom95 I had never thought of it that way....that is highly plausible.
AntiqueBreakfast 8 months ago
@soSiccK There are more than 700 convergents interviews, books and other more works against the oficial version. A National Geography documentary is so reliable than a coin of 22 cents. And we know around the USA enemies: they are close, very close... Nothing against the missil be launched by own american ship, unfortunately...
Sunlight is a thing that you needs, surely.
clodoalzer 9 months ago
@clodoalzer
Not addressed to me, but
The 700+ people were not all witnesses to a pre-explosion streak. That's the total number who saw part of the event. About 20-25% of these saw a streak of light. That means most of the 700 people are not against the official version. Also, if you are going to cover up a US missile, are you going to: 1) declare it a bomb (as Jim kallstrom was about to do); or 2) insist on dredging up every last piece of the plane and drag it out for years?
cchris874 8 months ago
@soSiccK
Well there is Evidence of Friendly Fire... I live in Long Beach (Aircraft on Final for JFK fly low over my house and JFK is pretty close by) and I wasn't old enough to remember but my Parents are friends with Airline Pilots/Workers and they think it was a Missile... also, a lot of people who did somehow witness it recall a Rocket or Missile or something in the distance flying upwards before the crash
Iceman5164 7 months ago
@Iceman5164 yea but they discovered that it wasnt a missile. There were 2 photos. One photo shows a mysterios trail in the sky and the other a plane with an other thing, which goes stright ahead to the plan. But at the first picture it wasnt a missile. It was only a pollution. And at the other pic it wasnt TWA 800. It was a Boeing 737 which flew in near of TWA 800.
VaxtesMusic 7 months ago
that would have been fun clinging in your seat in the tail - and then going down nosedive into the ocean - chump chump chump by all of the alligators waiting to eat you alive - nice fresh hot balls of fire!! mmmm
cabanaboi29 10 months ago
WOW
ConverseAholic 10 months ago
I worked and fueled aircraft for TWA for 21 years. First off the center fuel tank is not used often. there are 7 fuel tanks on the 747. That said, the report is correct that the aircraft didn't have fuel in the center tank. As far as it was a short in the wiring that brought it down. How much did you want for that bridge? The aircraft was shot down by either the military. If I'm wrong what happened to the seats that were logged into the crime scene and later disappeared.
StainlessSteel58 10 months ago 15
@StainlessSteel58 yeah they will never admit that the military or navy did that, they lie about everything.
k5lta 9 months ago
@StainlessSteel58 Nice to know our tax dollars are at work for the government to cover this up eh? This is why I NEVER leave the house without a gun. They are going to have to bleed if they want to take me.
mattxr2i 1 month ago
@StainlessSteel58 Stop talking out of your ass and open your eyes. There was absolutley NO conspiracy. It's completley possible for fuel vapors to blow up if faulty wiring reached the tank. They even gave the new 747-800s and existing -400 models the devices which nullify the effects. The eyewitnesses saw not a missle, but the final moments of TWA Flight 800 as it blows up, rising to the air while exploding.
fraroc 1 month ago
What a crock of shit! This was a missile! I know many, many people who were on the water that day, from Fisherman to Coast Guard Crewmen that were out of the Hampton bays Station. The truth will come out one day!
oganmy9 11 months ago
@oganmy9 ok mr terrorist if you believe it was a missle then tell us exactly where the plane is right now - was it just a missle and missed the flight or was it a missle shot somewhere else
cabanaboi29 10 months ago
@cabanaboi29 When did I ever ssay it was a Terrorist? How about looking into weapons testing in the area? Look at the number of United States Military Warships that were in the area at the time. When you're done figuring that one out, how about you read up on the local airport radar reports ... If you have a counterpoint please make it, and make it clear, because your response is vague at best.
oganmy9 10 months ago
@oganmy9
Why is it so hard to accept that the cause was exactly what the NTSB said it was?
cchris874 10 months ago
@cchris874 I should believe them like everyone believed the EPA after 9-11? You can take all the information a government agency releases and all their findings and you still have nothing but your own instincts to rely on. In this case I stated why I don't believe them.
oganmy9 10 months ago
@oganmy9
You're right. Instincts are sometimes necessary, especially in technical reports. Let's take for granted we can't trust anything in a government report. The same is true, far more true IMO, of CT theories, anonymous testimonies and internet web sites in general. Where does that leave us? My instinct tells me if this were a Navy missile, they would have declared it a bomb,as Jim Kallstrom was within hours of doing. Not insisting on dredging up every last piece of wreckage.
cchris874 10 months ago
@cchris874 Because it contradicts all sense and logic. It was much too obvious that a desperate cover up was in place. Secondly, a plane cannot fly and keep ascending for 4000 feet without its nose. Its simply not possible. When government goes as far as defeating the simplest physics then you know the situation is really bad. Don't forget that they also dismissed hundreds of witnesses and did not allow them to testify because it would uncover too much.
TheVarlic 9 months ago
@TheVarlic
Thanks. I've read all this multiple times. I believe you're right about the zoom climb. It seems -the little that's been published - to have "defied" physics. I suggest the reason for it was to make the CT brigade shut the f up, because they were hurting the NTSB's credibity. Not because there actually WAS a missile.
While on the subject of physics, maintaining that streak of light was a missile also seems to defy physics, given the timing is all off. See Fritz Meyer's comments
cchris874 9 months ago
By the way, do you know who has been on the board of directors of the National Geographic Society? Lady Bird Johnson, Think, LBJ the president after Kennedy. That should answer some questions for you as well. I WILL NEVER BELIEVE THE STATE STORY OF TWA 800. Unless, they come up with a more plausible explanation for what happened. Fuel exploding, give me a break, with a full tank of fuel, try again, I'm watching you!!! Too rich to burn, too lean to burn. Ring any bells? Work the numbers yourself.
starwatcher42 11 months ago
@starwatcher42
I worked the numbers. They told me you've been huffing paint.
QueexQ 11 months ago
I believe this was a case of mistaken identity. There is no way that the main tank that is used for weight and balance would be empty at this time. I believe the streak of light was just that, Missile, shoulder fired weapon, whatever. A streak of light that impacted TWA 800. This movie clip is only showing what the government wants you to see. NGS. has long history with association with the government, you need to judge for yourselves. Please never let me stand in your way, judge for yourselves!
starwatcher42 11 months ago
Lets see, a flight from New York to France, 12 minutes after takeoff with nearly empty tanks, not even close. YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT!! The tanks should have been almost full. You just want us to believe that this is what happened. Sorry, I will never watch or believe anything that the NGS has to say ever again. A/C packs don't generate that much heat for one thing. 12 minutes into a flight with the main tank that is used for weight and balance EMPTY???? Who are you trying to get over on? Walk On!!
starwatcher42 11 months ago
in the end it seems like its throttle up
Pedrohksgreddyturbo 1 year ago
Wow u 2 are fags get over it a plane crashed
biscuitag97 1 year ago
@biscuitag97
my father died in this crash. fuck yourself
lcr7892 11 months ago
@lcr7892 I am sorry anyone had, and has, to contend with a loss in the way that your family does. I imagine it's a small consolation, but I will say it anyway. From the time wreckage was loaded onto the trucks at the Hampton Bays Coast Guard Station and throughout the journey the hanger at Calverton the people along the route paid tribute to the lost souls of that flight. Most of us didn't know anyone on board but for some reason we knew we lost something.
oganmy9 10 months ago
@biscuitag97 A plane didn't just "crash", if you watched the video you'd realize that a plane crashed with over 200 people on board. No one should just "get over it", it was a tragedy and many people lost family and friends on that day. So next time don't call people "fags" for possesing something that you clearly don't have; a heart and a functioning brain. You are a disgrace to the human race, and have disrespected everyone who was affected by or lost someone in this, or any other plane crash.
KHS2189 11 months ago
I live right on Long Island and I remember driving to the beach in center moriches and you could see parts of the crash floating up on the shore and everyone on there boats going out to the wreck...it was horrible...may they rest in peace!
wannabeangel83 1 year ago
Lol ...How loud was it??
shonholmes 1 year ago
Another great american product.... They should never build such critical machines anymore.
bildtker76 1 year ago
@bildtker76 Are you stupid?
iDraw3G 1 year ago
@iDraw3G
bildker76 should tell us who makes them better. Airbus? When they aren't having problems perhaps.
cchris874 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Unlimited energy sources are out there!But the Establishment doesn't want ppl to know this,Get a real free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be a part of the energy revolution!
dharmastipulate 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
Your lack of effort is due to the fact that you don't understand how to evaluate evidence like a scientist or a scholar. That's fine for Youtube, but some of us have slightly higher standards. What scientist would blurt out "FUSSELAGE" when Meyer explicitly said "I never saw an airframe." ? You got it 180 degrees wrong. And now you want to convince me you know facts? Do yourself a favor and have nice plate of
Turkey
-
Happy Thanksgiving,
Chris
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
"they never said that"
Dear Youtube Scholar Extraordinaire, please google "and we all three said, about 10 seconds"
In his NTSB interview Mr. Meyer also stated he never saw an airplane, much less "fuselage."
-
You have to master the details if you want to have any hope of getting at the truth, a task you seem uninterested in. This is another example why I am done doing this exercise with you.
Cheers
cchris874 1 year ago
this all bullshit the truth is it was shot down.............
elber151 1 year ago
@elber151
Can you explain why Major Fritz Meyer and his co-pilot both stated only 10-12 seconds elapsed from the end of the streak of light to seeing the massive fireball fall to the ocean? The whole event took just 10 seconds? This is a sticking point for me.
Cheers
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
"lol"
Nothing left to say, I see.
-
There you have it, folks. Someone who will not engage in the give and take of good-natured discussion, who refuses to have a real discussion about altitude, explosives traces, chemical residue, etc etc. . . and who just spins up fake quotes out of thin air, like Fritz Meyer's seeing the FUSELAGE get hit (why it is that non-existent quotes get upper case is anyone's guess.) That's youtube for you.
-
Now please, you have the final word.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp Just curious if you agree with Sanders that terrorism was behind F800's crash.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
Why would anyone fire a missile at a plane that had already broken apart?
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
What you fail to understand is that an ascending streak of light has at least one other plausible explanation: a burning streak of fuel shooting upwards seconds before the fireball appeared. Why is your explanation better?
-
2nd, the evidence tampering is all explained by William Tobin. Please read him!!: the FBI took parts away because precisely because they WANTED to find the smoking gun explosives evidence.
Again, you need to review the concept of counter evidence.
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 Your statements are bizarre and completely illogical. You are citing FBI's public statements that have been later dropped. It was not just a few who saw a streak of light, it were hundreds of witnesses. Why did FBI dismiss all their statements and did not let them testify in court? Official videos of crippled flight were nonsense. You cannot defy physics in such a lame manner. Lastly, according to the official story all 747's are deadly and should not be flown.
TheVarlic 9 months ago
@TheVarlic
"Your statements are bizarre and completely illogical"
Which ones? I agree the zoom climb was nonsense. That doesn't mean a missile did it.
I can't speak to the FBI, but the NTSB did not dismiss all the witnesses.
"all 747s are deadly. . . . " the latest study on this guesses that about one out of 140 million flights will suffer a CWT explosion. So the NTSB merely concluded f800 was one chance in about 140 million. That sounds pretty safe to me.
cchris874 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheVarlic
"Your statements are bizarre and completely illogical"
Which ones? I agree the zoom climb was nonsense. That doesn't mean a missile did it.
I can't speak to the FBI, but the NTSB did not dismiss all the witnesses.
"all 747s are deadly. . . . " the latest study on this guesses that about one out of 140 million flights will suffer a CWT explosion. So the NTSB merely concluded f800 was one chance in about 140 million. That sounds pretty safe to me.
cchris874 9 months ago
@TheMscrp
Your evidence? What, a bunch of people see a streak of light? LOL You have no proof, unless you want to include the red/orange sample that Sanders admits on page 153 of Altered Evidence wasn't a positive match with rocket fuel. Most of the explosives traces were false positives, but a few were genuine. Doesn't prove anything when you have no inward bent metal, and no high velocity penetrations. The few traces were probably contaminants from bomb experts after they examined parts.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
The same is true of the missile theory. Your idea of hard evidence is fantasy: Basically, a bunch of people see a streak of light. Some proof.
-
As mentioned there is nothing resembling a proof that the red/orange residue was rocket fuel. The source is anonymous (a la Sanders), and even it states "inconclusive." As for the mystery blip on radar, I've seen the pictures, and far from merging w 800, they show it actually moving AWAY from it in the final seconds before 8:31:12.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
Hard evidence for a specific mechanical scenario is not really possible because the kind of event the NTSB thinks happened would not be likely to leave many traces, and indeed would most likely have been destroyed in the explosion. The case rests on probability, and by carefully noting the absence of many things which would have most likely been found had their been a missile.
-
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
I don't see how you can think the FBI seriously tried to cover up the existence of explosives traces because, contrary to what you and most CTists say, the FBI wanted desparately to declare the accident sabotage, just like you. It was only when cooler minds prevailed and the NTSB was allowed to finish its job did they finally realize there just wasn't enough evidence to support either a bomb or missile.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
Yes, I can't find the index because there isn't one. If you want to make a credible case "missile parts" were hidden, please give a page # whre I can read it, or give us a named source, not one of Sanders' many anonymous sources that can't be checked.
-
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
Any evidence that points away from missile and bomb is, by default, evidence that strengthens mechanical cause. So when I give you evidence F800 was already broken apart by the time streaks were seen, that is a first start. But you, not understanding the nature of evidence, couldn't see this. Like I said, I'm 10 steps ahead of you.
-
"he DOES use indexes"
He absolutely DOES NOT. I have both books in front of me. Please tell us, dear liar, what pages they start on.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
Please provide page #s or otherwise identifiy the source of the hidden missile parts claim. Your hero James Sanders doesn't believe in putting indexes in his books, so I have no way to find it w/o rereading both books.
Thank you.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
The part about missile parts being hidden? OK, I don't have a photographic memory, but I'll have a look again in those books. St. Sanders has a habit of giving anonymous sources, which I'm sure is the equivalent of onteological certitude to you.
-
"YOUR evidence"
- I've already given you names reports and sources for lots of stuff that supports my theory, but you don't have the slightest interest it. Why don't we start with the altitude of F800.
Now watch you ignore it again!
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
"various sources"
Could you direct me to these sources about hidden missile parts? Thanks.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
The altering of wreckage was hardly covered up. The NTSB made it be known in sworn testimony they weren't happy about it - now why would they say this to the world if they were part of the cover-up? Once again, that devil called counter evidence, which according to you doesn't exist. The reason the FBI altered and took away parts is they were dying to take over the investigation and declare it an act of sabotage.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp I didn't know we were dating honey bunny!! You think a guy like Bob Swain (Metallurgist) is going to throw out a 10 year education and esteemed career (he has worked on many crashes) by doctoring up some bullshit story and handing it over to Jim Kalstrom and every one goes for a beer and a giggle?? All the metallurgy shows ripped metal splayed OUTWARD from an overpressure event INSIDE the plane. The center tank was almost empty. EXTREMELY volatile situation.
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
@TheMscrp I am sorry but i have to side with Jim Kalstrom of the FBI when he said. "If a missile hit the plane it would have been obliterated we would not be looking at dollar sized pieces of wreckage and saying.. GEE I WONDER.. it would smack you across the face it would be so obvious".. Have you seen the metallurgist report? Witness marks on the forward spar of the fuel tank showing the rear spar rotated forward and hit it. From an overpressure event... AN EXPLOSION!!
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
This is bullshit
cjellwood 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
"Now piss off, you are wasting your time!!!!!"
Finally you got something right. You are a waste of time because you don't engage in dialogue - you and dismiss evidence, you don't want any real discussion. Like, where's your source for 36 witnesses seeing one object strike another? Your made up quote that Meyer saw a missile hit the FUSELAGE? Did you just dream that up, or what?
I'm always amazed how Big Shots are usually the biggest losers.
By By Mr. know-it-all.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
O jees, that's the one by Sanders, isn't it? If so, I saw that years ago - I even bought it on video, I'm embarrassed to say. OK, it's interesting. But it doesn't deal with all the counter evidence. It's a one sided picture only. You can make a case TWA800 was hit by a missile, sure. But you can also make a case that it wasn't. Sometimes things aren't what they 1st seem. This is one of them.
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874
That video is by Cashill. There are two ot there I bought. I forget who did the other one.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
"No one except you has mentioned this "8000ft factor." "
Wrong. That's what happens when all you feed yourself is one side of an argument. It shouldn't take long to find the page I got this from for yourself - if you are even curious. It's also confirmed by infrared satelite, and all those witnesses in exhibit 4A. OK, just damn and dismiss it all away, like Mr. Sanders does. Every new post confirms to me you don't know the 800 arguments as well as I do.
Cheers
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
Your posts are a scholarly joke. As Judge Judy likes to say, I'm 10 steps ahead of you. I've read more on the subject than you, including the Cashill/Sanders book you've never heard of, and the Cap Parlier book. I know the subject inside and out, as I once was a somewhat reluctant believer in the missile theory. So I know exactly where you're coming from. You're making all the mistakes and pitfalls all the other die-hard CTists make. They see only in black and white.
Cheers
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
"Which book by Jack Cashill?"
-
The one he wrote with Jim Sanders, "First Strike." It seems Mr. Sanders endorses Cashill's theory that there was BOTH a navy missile AND a terrorist airplane involved. Please tell me you don't take THAT theory seriously, or the theory there were "at least three missiles" according to Donaldson. Who knows, perhaps there were 10 or 20 missiles. It's the guys YOU trust who will stop at nothing to push absurd theories on a guullible readership.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
OK, we've established YOU are the one who doesn't read things carefully, just as was the case with Sanders' books. So am I surprised that you ignore or don't carefully read the AIRBORNE witness matrix? Of all THOSE witnesses there emerged a consensus that F800 was below 8,000 ft when it was seen exploding.
-
I am aware that few witnesses claim one object hit another. But 36? I've never seen that. I challenge you to give the source for that.
Thanks Mr. Big Shot.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
Sorry, but Major Meyer never said he SAW a fuselage, much less an airplane being hit. He ASSUMED it was AFTER he heard the news. What he ACTUALLY said is this: "I saw a streak of light. . . . There was a break - where it stopped - and then for an instanrt I saw nothing. And then suddenly right there I saw an explosion - high velocity explosion -military ordnance!"
-
Never any mention of SEEING an airplane. He's speculating, combining raw observation with the news story he heard.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
If I may say so, I would guess one of your chief roadblocks in taking a serious look at counter evidence is you start with the presumption that the streak of light HAD to be a missile, end of discussion. That's not how the scientific method is supposed to work. Why couldn't the streak of light have been a burning stream of fuel, or omni-directional explosion from which the huge fireball then erupted?
-
As for cover-up, please see William Tobin's sworn testimony.
Cheers
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
In addition we have Fritz Meyer, whose account indicates the fireball fell to the ocean in just 10 seconds. The streak he saw ended in not more than about 4 seconds before the fireball began. Yet if the initiating event was this streak, are we to believe F800 plummeted over 13,000 in 10 seconds? Of course not.
-
We also have the Eastwind pilot whose time stamped message to ATC indiactes no ascending object, and an explosion much later than 8:31:12.
-
Discuss.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
@TheMscrp
If you want a direct quote from an airborne witness, try Sven Faret & Ken Wendell. They were flying at 7,700 ft and reported that the explosions all happened below them, and no fire was ever visible above them. I trust your internet sourcing skills are sufficient to confirm this for yourself.
-shit stirrer
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
A simple yes would have been adequate.
For the altitude of F800's 1st visible explosion, the NTSB produced an airborne witness matrix. About a dozen gave altitude estimates. Of those that gave a specific altitude range, all put it between 3-8,000 ft . Source: NTSB exhibit 4A
-
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
When you are interested in having a seriosu discussion, let me know. I brought up an important point for discussion (which has nothing to do with government reports BTW). Instead of having a reasonable conversation, your more interested in saying f off, or your an idiot. OK, got it.
Let's see if we can ignite a real discussion. Do you agree F800 was already below 8,000 ft when the major fireball became visible to the streak witnesses? Would you like a source? Let me know.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
The devil is in the details-
Now what you should do, IMO, is come to grips with some facts the 800 CT crowd doesn't want you to know, prime among them: the plane was already below 8,000 ft and over 30 seconds into its earthward plunge when the fireball became visible. This is amply confirmed by airborne witnesses. Yet the streak witnesses say this explosion happened immediately or within a few seconds of the end of the streak.
-
Does this arouse your curiousity at all?
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874
At the very least this is called mixed evidence. If you are scientifically inclined, which seems highly doubtful, you would acknowlegde that there is contradictory evidence for a missile, and that the chemical "proof" we were talking about is yet another example. This is why Sanders back-peddled and changed his "proof" into a merely "consistent with." Well, by that lamer standard the FBI also proved it was glue, I guess.
What do you think of Jack Cashill's book?
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
And since you can't accept this reality I will spell it out with direct quotes:
in Book One he titles chapter 11 "Hard Evidence: Missile Residue" and states, "I knew I had the proof I'd been looking for for months." (p131)
But in Book 2, the word proof is dropped and replaced with "consistent with." (p153) Suddenly the hard evidence is looking less hard than before.
-
This is not a man intent on being terribly scientific, nor one whom I would trust anymore than the media.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
"Sander's books are all about one thing: Uncovering the fact of a. . . cover-up."
-
Irrelevant. What a book is about doesn't guarantee its honesty or integrity. Sanders is not one's idea of a scholarly truth teller - I have no doubt he really believes in a cover-up. But it can't erase his opportunism. His assertion of PROOF of missile residue in his 1st book came back to haunt him, so he then claims in book #2 (lies, as CTists would put it) that he never said such thing!!
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
I don't need any logic explained to me. If you read pp152-3 of "Altered Evidence" in their entirety, you would know that Sanders AGREES with NORTHINGTON's view of the chemical analysis of the red residue sample. It was INCONCLUSIVE. On p153 Sanders states that Kallstrom misquoted him by telling the media Sanders had "conclusive" evidence.
Now lets stop here for a moment. Do you agree with the above summary so far? AQ simple yes or no would be nice. Thanks
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
If you really did read his books carefully then you would know that what I stated is 100% correct. I gave you the quotes and the page numbers an/or chapters. Please tell me which ones are wrong and I will happily correct it. Thanks.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
So I reluctantly cocluded that F800 was an acident just as the NTSB states. Much more recently another tests was done simulating the condition of the fuel tank of F800 which caused a major explosion with a small spark. This further makes their case credible.
-
To me, the biggest problem with CT theorists is their inability to see how some events are elusive, and where you can make a plausible case for competing theories. Instead, they always see in black and white.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
Sanders cont'd. The point is this. When Sanders 1st got hold of the chemical evidence he pushed it on his readers as "proof of a missile." Then, when the media ridiculed him for claiming proof, he did a nice clean-up act and admits that the evidence fell short of a proof.
-
As far as my opinion on F800, I thought for the longest time it was a missile. The turning point came when I realized F800 had fallen for 30 seconds or more before it was seen exploding.
Cheers
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
"that stupid to make such a big mistake."
Why not? You're claiming, by implication, everyone at the NTSB is stupid enough to have published a big lie.So the NTSB makes huge mistakes, but Sanders doesn't. Did I get that right?
-
OK, as far as that quote, this shows again the lame level of scholarship of youtube. YES, this is what someone else said, but on the next page Sanders agrees with it !! Do you not read the books you recommend?
(eyes rolling)
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
Well, you have the source yourself, according to you: "Altered Evidence" p152, and I quote Sanders directly "NORTHINGTON specifically informed SANDERS that. . . there was no conclusive evidence [of] rocket propellent."
Now in his 1st book, "The Downing of F800," chapter 11 is titled "Hard Evidence: Missile Residue," where he goes on to say "I knew I had the proof."
Wow. "Proof" in book one becomes non-proof in book 2. He's no less of a liar than the government propogandists !
cchris874 1 year ago
@darling67
"Witness 649"
I just looked that one up to refresh the memory. His statement could possibly indicate missile, just as it could indicate streak of burning fuel. He doesn't identify what the 2nd object was. And: once again, here's a witness who contradicts the accident timetable, as this fireball did not happen until more than 30 seconds after the time of an alleged missile strike. Not one second, as 649 claims.
Translation: inconclusive at best with likely contradiction.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
con'td. I mean, just how stupid do you envision them? Or is it possible that maybe you exagerrate a bit? That maybe this notion of a "PROJECTILE was SEEN hitting TWA800" is YOU looking at a picture, or hearing about one or two isolated witness making an extravagant claim, and then that metamorphasizes into a positive proof? Again, SHOW us the picture, show us a video, show us more than a fanciful witness such as Lisa Perry. Do you undersatand what "proof" is?
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
"A PROJECTILE was SEEN hitting TWA 800"
Show me. From what I've seen only a handful of the many 100s of eyewitnesses claim to have seen F800 being hit. And a few, like Lisa Perry, are clearly far-fetched.
Why do people like yourself expect to convince anyone of anything by going that step too far off the deep end, where NTSB senior investigators are not just part of a cover-up, but by implication, also utterly stupid morons who lack the alleged common sense you do?
cchris874 1 year ago
our government accidently shot it down~
lisamaria1972 1 year ago
@darling67
That can't be the only site with that photo. If you find another link let me know.
Again, if they wanted a nice cover-up, why did they drag the investigation on for four years and not instead declare it a bomb? After all they had all those false positives initially. Would have worked fine and been much less suspicious. And less expensive. They would have just let Mr. Kallstrom deliver that press conference he was about to give on August 14th declaring it a bomb.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
It's a question of probability, since I agree there is no absolute hard proof of mechanical. But make no mistake, there is nothing remotely resembling a proof of a shoot down either. How probable depends on how skillfully you analyze the evidence. In the book you mention, Sanders goes out of his way to say the chemical evidence was not a positive proof of anything. But in his first book, he says otherwise. You can just never trust those CTist - just as bad as the media!!!
cchris874 1 year ago
@darling67
I'm getting the site, but no photos, even using their search box. If I did see the photo, would it positively rule out a streak of burning jet fuel arcing upwards from the beginning of the major fireball, an "omni-directional explosion" in William Tobin's words? This positive differentiation is not what I'm seeing in the vast majority of streak witnesses. The evidence is very conflicting at best, and at worst contradicting the timetable of the break-up sequence.
cchris874 1 year ago
@TheMscrp
All that's missing is the proof.
cchris874 1 year ago
@darling67
Can you show us (or link us to) such a photo?
- I agree the zoom climb didn't happen. It was a stupid public relations move to quell rising doubt, IMO. The goal was not to cover-up, but to maintain the NTSB's credibility. At least that's a plausible scenario in the face of the world's first big out-of-control internet CT. The streak of light was in all likelihood the beginning sequence of the fireball, producing an omni-directional streak/s of burning fuel.
cchris874 1 year ago
BS BS BS BS BS BS BS
111day1 1 year ago
So there was a short circuit just as the missile hit the plane. I get it.
happystab 1 year ago
@happystab two missiles hit it
nucsol 1 year ago
Honestly, I'm not the type of person to beleve in conspiracies. However, this seems fishy. I've heard some of the witnesses and I believe what they are saying about the missle is rock sollid. The fact the the FBI wouldn't take the information from the witnesses proves that they are hiding something So yes, Cover up makes sense.
By the way I was very young when this happened. If there's something that's incorrect about what I said Please tell me I'd like to know
thebrainstorm9803 1 year ago
@thebrainstorm9803
"FBI wouldn't take the information"
There are conflicting stories about all this. The NTSB certainly collected 100s of reports, and are in the final report. The FBI did lots of things that were out of step. But keep in mind they were absolutely dying to declare this accident a bomb - Jim Kallstrom was about to announce this at a press conference until William Tobin -their chief metallurgist - told him to shut the f up. This is all very odd for an alleged cover-up.
cchris874 1 year ago
Faulty wirring, lol I smell Bullshit. I watched it live on CNN and it was a missile clear as day, you could even see the tracker activating as the missile adjusted its course and locked onto the plane, you could see clearly the missile trail from its launch position in the ocean. Government of the people for the people my ass. Those people were murdered and you could choke on the proof and if not why hide the CNN footage viewed by thousands? Because it clearly shows a missile strike.
nucsol 1 year ago
@nucsol
You saw a VIDEO of the missile on CNN? That's news to me.
F800 - if this were a cover-up, the logical course of events would be to halt the recovery of wreckage, have the FBI take over (to avoid the necessity of a lengthy NTSB report) and simply declare it a bomb - as was the FBI on the verge of doing until William Tobin intervened. Instead, we asre to believe the government insisted on dredging up 95% of the wreckage and come up with a mechanical freak accident. BS, IMO.
Cheers
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 The whole nation saw that video, check the web sites on flt 800. The video ran for about four hours in a top news loop and then it was taken off the air, never to be seen again. I will never forget it, you could clearly see the missile adjust its course and strike the plane. There are just way to many witnesses to the event and like 911 we know it is BS but hell if we can do anything about it. In the case of Flt. 800 the truth is just way to expensive.
nucsol 1 year ago
@nucsol
I've checked dozens of them numerous times over 14 years. Are you saying I can see this video one of these sites?
Thanks
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 No Sir, I am saying that on eye witness sites you'll find plenty of reports from those who saw the same footage that day on CNN. The footage was taken off of the air and never seen again by anyone. The problem is that well over a hundred thousand people saw the initial footage that ran for about 40 seconds every half hour, then three or four hours later it was gone never to be shown again. I shit you not, a missile hit that plane clear as day and I'll never forget what I saw that day.
nucsol 1 year ago
@nucsol
Thanks. I looked into it, and it seems you are correct. I came across an artilce by Jack Cashill who also did not see it, but heard about it from many others like yourself. It goes some way in explaining why so many people were (and still are) of the belief something was covered up. But this raise more questions than it answers, to me at least. 1st, all such footage is archived, not just by the networks themselves, but by no doubt countless people with a VCR .
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 I thought the same as you did but after 911 I learned that the media does as it is told, just like Russian media. The coverage was in the late morning to early afternoon and most like myself thought it would run for 24 hours at least. On 911 I recorded everything because of Flt. 800, don't think it's not all related because it is. The first casualty of war is the TRUTH.................. Be well
nucsol 1 year ago
@nucsol
Flight 800 is one thing, and I am willing to consider a missile as a serious, even if very unlikely, possibility. But 911 , for me, goes off the deepest of deep ends, at least as far as the MIHOP crowd is concerned. I don't understand why such people find the unpeered review, unscholarly articles preferable to the peer reviewed and scholarly ones. Can you explain this? Because everything they say has been answered by far more credible experts then people like Steve Jones.
Cheers
cchris874 1 year ago
@cchris874 With 911 stick with the law of physics and check out scholars for 911 truth. You must know of WTC 7? Very real experts in structural engineering, architecture, science and physics, fire proffessionals, demolition experts and fighter jet pilots all say the events of 911 defy logic. Buildings do not collapse at free fall speed and even if the did the would not vaporize concrete to particles under 100 microns, only a volcano could do that.
nucsol 1 year ago
@nucsol
This is one side of the story only. And it comes primarily from unpeer reviewed unscholarly sources. By contrast, the debunkers rely, in genereal, on more reliable categories of evidence and have now published may peer review articles. By contrast, the inside job crowd has almost nothing in peer review form. Why are you of the view that the best way to have an informed opinion is to choose the least reliable, least peer-reviewed form evidence and articles?
cchris874 1 year ago
@nucsol
cont'd
So, why has nothing surfaced since? It seems nearly impossible to believe that a smoking gun of this nature, floating around on VCRs in living rooms throughout the US, has not been Youtubed or otherwise posted in 14 years. 2nd, since there is little doubt in my mind that there was indeed one or more streaks of light preceding the fireball, which would have appeared to be rising to some witnesses, what does this tell us that we don't already know?
Cheers
Chris
cchris874 1 year ago
if the nose was seperated, how could the remainder fly upwards? would the flaps or something stick in the upright position?
MrBerrillProductions 1 year ago
@MrBerrillProductions
"if . . nose seperated "
The answer is, it almost certainly did not fly upwards. The purpose of this scenario, however, was just to put a lid on all the conspiracy talk. It worked. It had nothing to do with an actual cover-up. Just my HO.
cchris874 1 year ago
This plane was shot down because it had doctors aboard who had discovered a cure for AIDS and Clinton had it shot down.
tbursee 1 year ago
@tbursee Sorry man I don't believe that.
thebrainstorm9803 1 year ago