It's Baack! The TWA Flight 800 Missile Theory Revived

[Formaldehyde]

TWA Flight 800 crash not due to gas tank explosion, former investigators say

The producers of an upcoming documentary on TWA Flight 800—which exploded and crashed into the waters off Long Island, N.Y., on July 17, 1996, killing all 230 people on board—claim to have proof that a missile caused the Paris-bound flight to crash. And six former investigators who took part in the film say there was a cover-up and want the case reopened.

"There was a lack of coordination and willful denial of information," Hank Hughes, a senior accident investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board, said on Wednesday during a conference call with reporters. "There were 755 witnesses. At no time was information provided by the witnesses shared by the FBI."

Jim Speer, an accident investigator at the time of the crash for the Airline Pilots Association, who sifted through the recovered wreckage in a hangar, said he discovered holes consistent with those that would be formed by a high-energy blast in the right wing. He requested it be tested for explosives. When the test came back positive, he said, he was "physically removed" from a room by two CIA agents.

The investigators would not speculate on the reasons for the alleged coverup or who would have fired the missile that they believe took down the plane.

After a four-year investigation, the NTSB concluded the plane was destroyed by a center fuel tank explosion likely caused by a spark from faulty wiring. But according to Tom Stalcup, a co-producer of the documentary, the film presents new "radar and forensic evidence proving that one or more ordnance explosions outside the aircraft caused the crash." The film will premiere on EPIX on July 17, the 17th anniversary of the disaster.

"These investigators were not allowed to speak to the public or refute any comments made by their superiors and/or NTSB and FBI officials about their work at the time of the official investigation," a news release announcing the documentary said. "They waited until after retirement to reveal how the official conclusion by the (NTSB) was falsified and lay out their case."

The investigators filed a petition with the NTSB on Wednesday calling for a new probe. The NTSB had said it would review any petition related to the 1996 crash, which touched off one of the most complex air disaster investigations in U.S. history.

The CIA and FBI conducted a parallel investigation to determine if a bomb or missile had brought down the plane.

Dozens of eyewitnesses in the Long Island area "recalled seeing something resembling a flare or firework ascend and culminate in an explosion," the CIA said in a 2008 report. "Had the crash been the result of state-sponsored terrorism, it would have been considered an act of war." Also from the report:

The CIA responded to the FBI’s request within 24 hours of the crash. This support consisted primarily of help from the Counterterrorist Center in the Directorate of Operations and from a small group of analysts in the Office of Weapons, Technology and Proliferation in the Directorate of Intelligence.

But after an eight-month investigation, the CIA "concluded with confidence and full substantiation that the eyewitnesses had not seen a missile."

The CIA's deputy director of intelligence wrote in a 1997 memo,"Our analysis demonstrates that the eyewitness sightings of greatest concern to us—the ones originally interpreted to be of a possible missile attack—took place after the first of several explosions aboard the aircraft."

"We went back and interviewed these people and found them to be quite credible," Hughes said on Wednesday.

He added: "We have no hidden agenda here—we just want the truth."

Do you think there is any basis for this? Or is it just an attempt to garner publicity for the upcoming release of the movie?

 

[warpus]

Even if this was true, we won't find out for sure until maybe like 50 years from now. Cause you know, "National security"

 

[Formaldehyde]

Here is a very interesting video made by an experienced pilot that I found from this website.


Link to video.

The article itself is also quite interesting.

5. Why 'The Dog Did It' Doesn't Work

The seats affected by the residue, as shown above, were rows 15-25.

In a typical bomb-sniffing exercise, a bomb is hidden in an enclosed place. On a plane, a seat back, or a closet, or a cabinet would be ideal.

Not a continuous swath of 10 seats.

6. So What Was It?

...

In the reconstructed TWA Flight 800 airplane (above), the right side where the origin of explosion is has a very obvious impact point from the outside.

 

[kramerfan86]

Where is a Snowden type character to just leak the truth to us?

 

[bhsup]

In other totally plausible eyewitness news...

http://www.bing.com/search?q=eyewitness+ufo+abductions

 

[Antilogic]

I'm afraid I don't know too much about this crash, but I'm pretty soured on conspiracy theories regarding aircraft crashes after the whole truther thing. Might have to sit this one out.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I dismissed it all back then during the original investigation.

But that was before the reports of now-retired investigators who have come forward to dispute the findings, as well as the refutation of the CIA-generated animation which at the time it was not mentioned who made it.

They also didn't make it clear how many people claimed they saw at least one missile rising up from the ground and striking the plane.

But I am still skeptical. If there was a missile involved and there was direct evidence as claimed, there must have been an intentional cover-up. I can't see what possible motive they would have had to do so.

 

[Cutlass]

I never saw any reason to assume that the missile scenario was true. Missiles are pretty unmistakable for anything else. And the video posted above about the stall speed meaning the body of the plane couldn't go up by 1000s of feet makes no sense either.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It seems like a pretty weird design that would have the plane's engines continue to provide the same power as before when there was no longer any control systems operating them. One would think they would be designed to do just the opposite for safety reasons.

But either way, it does seem like the plane would indeed stall if it was suddenly lacking so much weight from the front.

 

[Cutlass]

Sure it would. In fact, it would break up. And eventually the engines would shut down as well. But what you aren't considering is the timing. At cruising speed a 747 is traveling at something like 700mph. Now not to get blasted for bad math, but that's something like 1000ft per second. Now is it believable that that airplane could rise 1000s of feet in just a few seconds while it was out of control before it lost so much speed to broken aerodynamics and stall that it began to crash? Certainly seems that way to me.

Stall happens when a plane doesn't have enough forward speed to maintain lift, no matter what the angle of attack. But the momentum of that plane is very large, and it's going to take a few seconds for it to be lost.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The cruising speed of a 747 is actually lower than that, but no sense picking nits.

However "eventually the engines would shut down"? Why wouldn't this occur immediately when there were no longer any control systems operating them?

Don't you think it is quite a coincidence that the CIA "lost the documents" when Capt Ray Lahr eventually won the Freedom of Information case to see the data which the animation was supposedly made?

What about the National Guard helicopter pilot who filed this official statement?

Meyer says he saw a trail of white headed for the plane and then four explosions before the ultimate fuel-tank explosion that erupted into a fireball. But when Meyer approached the FBI to give his testimony, a five-minute interview with a single agent who took no notes was the only time he was given.

Meyer is a Vietnam war combat veteran who flew 46 rescue missions in Vietnam and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. But despite the witness’ credibility, the FBI never contacted him again.

 

[bhsup]

If you manage to get the aircraft to recover from a stall, do you really want to be without engine power?

 

[Cutlass]

Assuming that the fuel shutoff to the engines happened within 2 seconds of losing the controls, and you really, really, really, do not want that to happen, the aircraft is still going to travel several miles before there is any noticeable difference in how fast the engines are turning.

 

[peter grimes]

The cruising speed of a 747 is actually lower than that, but no sense picking nits.

However "eventually the engines would shut down"? Why wouldn't this occur immediately when there were no longer any control systems operating them?

Don't you think it is quite a coincidence that the CIA "lost the documents" when Capt Ray Lahr eventually won the Freedom of Information case to see the data which the animation was supposedly made?

What about the National Guard helicopter pilot who filed this official statement?

I'm not compelled by individual eye witness testimony, but when dozens of witnesses are all pointing in the same direction, I start to listen.

In the testimony above it's unclear that the streak he claims to have seen was moving from low altitude to high, or high altitude to low. I thought the missile theory involved a SAM?

Also, meteors can totally be visible in broad daylight, just to be clear.

 

[Cutlass]

This is what a navy surface to air missile looks like. Hard to mistake it.


Link to video.

 

[Ajidica]

I was only three when this happened, so I have no memory of it whatsoever, but is there any possible reason for a clandestine organization to want to shoot a missile at the plane? Clandestine organizations don't shoot expensive missiles at 747s because they are bored.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm not compelled by individual eye witness testimony, but when dozens of witnesses are all pointing in the same direction, I start to listen.

In the testimony above it's unclear that the streak he claims to have seen was moving from low altitude to high, or high altitude to low. I thought the missile theory involved a SAM?

Also, meteors can totally be visible in broad daylight, just to be clear.

Most shooting stars aren't meteors. They are meteorites and are not visible during the day. Neither are they red-orange like the exhaust of a missile.

Here is his full statement:

http://twa800.com/lahr/affidavits/o-fred-meyer.pdf

While Major Meyer doesn't mention that the track went upwards in his testimony, he is quite clear about several details:

1) There was a white "high-velocity" explosion following his sighting which he claims was caused by military ordnance. That he has years of experience viewing similar explosions.

2) This was followed by another explosion of a "brilliant white light" as though a second missile had struck.

3) Then, 3 to 5 seconds later, the fuel tank exploded which has an entirely different color. That this was the "last event" which occurred, not the first.

4) He didn't see any debris coming out of the top of the fireball. It all fell downwards.

 

[peter grimes]

I was only three when this happened, so I have no memory of it whatsoever, but is there any possible reason for a clandestine organization to want to shoot a missile at the plane? Clandestine organizations don't shoot expensive missiles at 747s because they are bored.

I haven't read the thread totally, take that into consideration. From what I remember there was a theory that the plane was shot down by an accidental US Navy missile. There were naval exercises in the area at the time.

In other words, 'friendly fire'. That would explain a strong desire to cover up, especially if the weapons systems were classified or in contravention of a treaty.

But I could be mistaken.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There were indeed naval exercises in the area. But all the ordnance for the ships involved was accounted for afterwards.

Check out the very first URL I posted. It goes into this aspect of the matter in some depth.

I completely discount that it could have possibly been an accidental shoot down by the Navy because there is no way that all the personnel on all the ships in the exercise who would have witnessed it would remain silent. There is also very frequent air traffic along this corridor coming from and going to Europe. They would have not even contemplated doing a live fire exercise that close to the commercial flight path and to Long Island for obvious reasons.