Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Report claims new cause for the TWA #800 crash in 1996 which killed 230

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Mr981, Jun 18, 2013.

  1. bunk22


    May 25, 2009
    Again, this. The rocket motor would have burned out "if" it had reached the aircraft as well and people most likely would not have seen a missile streak.

  2. frank4570


    Jun 25, 2004
    I wondered if maybe the height had something to do with it.
    Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.


  3. Kudos for bringing the logic to kill this nonsense.
  4. HKLovingIT

    HKLovingIT Resident Evil

    Aug 20, 2010
    Out On The Tiles

    You know it. :rofl: This thread will not disappoint. :thumbsup:
  5. itstime


    Apr 9, 2006
    A friends wife was w the NTSC at that time and we still argue about that crash. Lol. Knowing she was on the case Ill take the tin hatter side. Just saying.
  6. ray9898


    May 29, 2001
    I wonder how much these guys got paid for this information they have been sitting on for all these years?
  7. Tiro Fijo

    Tiro Fijo

    May 31, 2011

    I agree that this is most likely the case, however let them make fools of themselves. The bigger issue at hand is that there will always be conspiracy theorists who eat this crap up & with all the NSA, Benghazi, etc., ongoing scandals there are those who will swallow this hook, line & sinker.
  8. sns3guppy


    Sep 4, 2006
    A Mistral was recovered in New Jersey just prior to the shootdown of TWA 800.

    Hundreds did report it, accurately, and in agreement, but entirely independent sources.

    I don't know a single 747 crew member who believes the CWT exploded on its own. There was never anything done or found to support that. Nothing. Every attempt to duplicate the alleged CWT explosion using internal fuels, ignitors, etc, failed. Even efforts to duplicate it using propane gas didn't work.

    One crew member whom I know became a crew member on the 747 (recently retired as Captain) after his wife and son were killed in the TWA 800 shootdown. Ask him what he believes. I did.

    No ground school instructor, systems instructor, mechanic, pilot, or flight engineer qualified on or serving on that equipment whom I've ever met thinks that it was a CWT explosion based on wiring. It wasn't.
  9. AK_Stick

    AK_Stick AAAMAD

    Jan 20, 2004
    Alaska, again (for now)
    Its was an IGLA (SA-18) not a Mistral. Secondly, the SA-18 couldn't have made that hit. And it wasn't till 2003 that the -18 was recovered in Newark.

    Secondly, I have no doubt that you know people who think it was shot down.

    However, I highly doubt you know anyone who knows much, or as much about MANPADs as I do, who thinks it was shot down with one.


    I'm not saying the airframe was brought down by an explosion caused by a wiring short in the CWT.

    I'm simply saying it was not brought down by a MANPAD, or SAM missile, because the evidence that would show that, is sorely missing. Not to mention the engagement profile.
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2013
  10. 427


    Nov 23, 2009
    I have a close personal friend who's a Fed and actually went and examined the wreckage. He says it was the fuel tank. As long as I've known him he's always been straight up with me and I'll take him at his word.

    LASTRESORT20 LongTerm-Guy

    Aug 10, 2010
    `The depths the administration and the left at large is going to right now to cover up all these scandals and have the sheeple look the other way is impressive and disgusting. Propaganda and more propaganda.....Now this....How convenient.

    *Suddenly a 17 year old airline crash is re-investigated and some of the "investigators" are ALL OF A SUDDEN coming out and saying it was a "possible terrorist attack" after all? After ALL previous investigations concluded it was a fuel tank rupture?`
  12. TBO

    TBO Why so serious? CLM

    No only prior military experience, but sat on a board that composed the MANPADS mitigation plan for my area.
    Bring on the tin hats! :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

    Stick, shaad-up! :popcorn:
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2013
  13. Ramsey Yousef, the guy who tried to blow up the WTC in 1993, also planned and tested a plot to blow up multiple airliners over the Pacific in a plan called "BOJINKA". He devised an explosive device using PETN concealed in a toothpaste tube, and a detonator configured from a casio watch, and tested it on a flight in the Phillipines, where he was living at the time.

    He planted the device under the seat he thought was directly over the center fuel tank, (but had studied the configuration on a slightly different model than the aircraft he was on) before leaving the plane. The device exploded and killed the passenger in the seat, but the plane was able to land safely.

    I found that interesting considering it was the first of its kind (and apparently unable to be recreated in tests) accidental explosion in the center fuel tank of Flt 800. I have also read about the multiple witnesses that observed weather balloons or swamp gas rising at high speeds towards the aircraft over Long Island Sound; as well as the alleged component of a SAM, er, I mean weather balloon, fished out of the water by local fisherman and turned over to the FBI.

    I am generally not a conspiracy theorist, but considering the dearth of airliners that have exploded in mid-air in my lifetime, I remain skeptical of the official explanation. I also found it interesting that George Stephanopolous inadvertently referred to FLT 800 as one of the few successful terrorist attacks under Clinton's watch during a post 9-11 interview (he then corrected himself, but maybe it was a slip).
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2013
  14. AK_Stick

    AK_Stick AAAMAD

    Jan 20, 2004
    Alaska, again (for now)

    The thing is, eye witness testimony probably did see a streak of light ascending in the sky.

    However, it was more than likely, the already burning aircraft. Climbing, after the nose broke/was blown free. Depending upon your angle, it can look like the airplane/light source is rapidly climbing, because its rolling, and turning and you don't have a good view.
  15. goldenlight


    Apr 15, 2007
    Shoulder fired heat seeking missile. The jet was low and slow when it went down; perfect conditions for a short range missile.

    I NEVER believed the LIARS in our government: their LIES never passed the smell test, for me.
  16. AK_Stick

    AK_Stick AAAMAD

    Jan 20, 2004
    Alaska, again (for now)

    13-16K feet @ 400+ KIAS is not "low and slow" and was safely out of the engagement envelope for every MANPAD that was in use at that time. Infact, it would probably still be out of the engagement envelope for any current MANPAD too.

    Not to mention, the damage, and strike location, is not consistent with a MANPAD engagement.

    There aren't many frontal aspect engagement systems today that could make a hit on a 400+KIAS airplane at those altitudes, and we've come a long way in the last 17 years.
  17. ShallNotBeInfringed

    ShallNotBeInfringed NRA Business Al

    Feb 2, 2013
    It was not one locked on missile, it was two. Warheads did not detonate, but went through the plane, tearing it open.

    Sent from my VS950 4G using Ohub Campfire mobile app
  18. 427


    Nov 23, 2009
    Wasn't the flight at ~15-16,000ft went started to go down? Is 15,000ft considered "low"? If so, by whom?