Babe Ruth Posted July 18, 2013 #201 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Did you even watch it or are you poo-pooing it based on the fact that you already know what happened? He's just cheerleading, which is all he ever does. By way of cheers, he's covering Sky's six o'clock. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted July 18, 2013 #202 Share Posted July 18, 2013 He's just cheerleading, which is all he ever does. By way of cheers, he's covering Sky's six o'clock. And to answer you Cheerleading As I always do ! YEs ,And No ! Its was not shown ! And a challenge to All that did see it,Did it change the results of the Crash? Do you think you know what happened now? Show us the Proof ! Please Enlighten us ! And Yes Im on Skyeagles Six.He`s been a friend for many years now ! And He`s Correct on his results and Facts. Unlike some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacsMom Posted July 18, 2013 #203 Share Posted July 18, 2013 So, just to clarify, you discount all the eyewitnesses' testimony as being inaccurate, mistaken identity, or outright lies. Correct? (Now, I'm not getting into a debate as to what I personally think happened and what you personally think happened because I'm not going to participate in a zero sum game. I just want to know what your stance on the eyewitnesses is.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted July 18, 2013 #204 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Great show on the TWA 800 investigation right now. Things that make you go hmmmm........... Darn it! I missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted July 18, 2013 #205 Share Posted July 18, 2013 RPG. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 18, 2013 #206 Share Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) So, just to clarify, you discount all the eyewitnesses' testimony as being inaccurate, mistaken identity, or outright lies. Correct? (Now, I'm not getting into a debate as to what I personally think happened and what you personally think happened because I'm not going to participate in a zero sum game. I just want to know what your stance on the eyewitnesses is.) There were no missiles involved in the TWA 800 incident. What witnesses saw was the burning wreckage of TWA 800 climbing into the sky when the forward fuselage became dislodged, which would have significantly shifted the aircraft's center-of-balance to a tail-heavy position. As a result, TWA 800 climbed as it trailed flaming fuel before it finally descended. From a distance, TWA 800 would have been confused as a missile. I have seen results of aircraft fuel tank explosions at my base and fuel tank explosions are nothing new in the world of aviation. The TWA 800 missile story was a hoax, but there are conspiracy theorist who continue to push that hoaxed missile story in an effort to mislead people. Author of Flight 800 Tale Admits Hoax A man who used the Internet to accuse the Navy of shooting down TWA Flight 800 told CNN that his actions were "reckless and a mistake." Ian Goddard said he just wanted "to give the government a black eye by any means that looked opportune," according to CNN. "TWA 800 was just a vehicle for my larger agenda." In March, Goddard released a report on the Internet claiming that the government was covering up that a Navy missile brought down the plane in July 1996, killing all 230 people on board. http://articles.lati...6/news/mn-50866 Conspiracy theories, outrage swirl around TWA 800 plane crash One story that surfaced shortly after the crash laid out an elaborate conspiracy theory that the crash was caused by a U.S. Navy "friendly fire" incident that was followed by a huge government cover-up.The report was co-authored by Ian Goddard, Mike Sommers and the late former ABC News reporter Pierre Salinger. Goddard later apologized for the report, saying "my effort to pin the crash ... on the Navy was reckless and a mistake." Kallstrom -- a former FBI assistant director -- said he wouldn't be opposed to the FBI joining with the NTSB to take another look at the case. The agency told CNN it has received Hughes' petition and "will respond to the petitioners once a determination is made." The NTSB noted that petitions must be based on new evidence or "on a showing that the Board's findings are erroneous." New evidence? The basic claim that a missile hit the plane isn't new, wrote Adcock. The radar data doesn't appear to be new either, according to journalist James Polk, one of CNN's lead producers covering the disaster. "As far as I can tell from reading the petition, there's no new evidence," Polk said. "But their alternative interpretation of existing evidence and their assumptions alone probably will not be sufficient to persuade the NTSB to start all over again from scratch." http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_c3 Missile hoax dashes all Web credibility In a March 17, 1997, Internet site report, a man calling himself Goddard boasted: "The portions of the Salinger Report that are derived from my work - hence my status as co-author - are derived from carefully researched and referenced reports I have posted publicly on the Internet." Now, in a written statement to Cable News Network last week, the alleged Goddard admits to making a reckless and mistaken accusation about the Navy missile and confessed that he pursued and promoted his claim because he "wanted to give the government a black eye by any means that looked opportune." In doing so, he cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in investigative pursuit of his counterfeit claim, brought greater anguish to the families of those lost on TWA 800 and rendered implausible anything you might see on the Internet. Edited July 18, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacsMom Posted July 18, 2013 #207 Share Posted July 18, 2013 But isn't he just saying that his accusations of the Navy were "reckless and a mistake"? I don't see where he says that the whole idea of a missile was pulled out of his **** and that he was the only one who came up with it. Just that blaming the Navy was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacsMom Posted July 18, 2013 #208 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Darn it! I missed it. It was actually quite good. I have been on the fence about this one for a while. But what is turning my mind is the eyewitnesses that saw not one but three bright points of light turning in different directions and converging at the plane's location. The pilot who was in the air and saw a streak of light originate from below his aerial position and go toward the plane. The experts who were left out of the official report because their investigation showed that the explosion came from outside the plane. I'm sure it will be re-run again, Kowalski. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 18, 2013 #209 Share Posted July 18, 2013 But isn't he just saying that his accusations of the Navy were "reckless and a mistake"? Yes. I don't see where he says that the whole idea of a missile was pulled out of his **** and that he was the only one who came up with it. Just that blaming the Navy was. He also said: ...and confessed that he pursued and promoted his claim because he "wanted to give the government a black eye by any means that looked opportune." He knew that no missile was involved in the TWA 800 incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted July 18, 2013 #210 Share Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) But isn't he just saying that his accusations of the Navy were "reckless and a mistake"? I don't see where he says that the whole idea of a missile was pulled out of his **** and that he was the only one who came up with it. Just that blaming the Navy was. Did you see this: The FBI had advance warning of an al-Qaeda plot to bring down a commercial airliner on American soil just weeks before the 1996 TWA 800 crash that claimed 230 civilian lives. Now, a series of previously-confidential FBI documents obtained by investigative journalist Peter Lance and seen by MailOnline, provide compelling evidence that the crash was an act of terror orchestrated by the man now believed by many to be the true architect of 9/11. Speaking to MailOnline Lance said: ‘Who wants to have an act of terror on their watch especially an act of terror where an argument could be made that they could have stopped it? ‘The FBI were warned from their own guy. What happened was exactly what he had predicted, exactly. All the dots were connected.’ Link: http://www.dailymail...-jail-cell.html Edited July 18, 2013 by Kowalski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted July 18, 2013 #211 Share Posted July 18, 2013 It was actually quite good. I have been on the fence about this one for a while. But what is turning my mind is the eyewitnesses that saw not one but three bright points of light turning in different directions and converging at the plane's location. The pilot who was in the air and saw a streak of light originate from below his aerial position and go toward the plane. The experts who were left out of the official report because their investigation showed that the explosion came from outside the plane. I'm sure it will be re-run again, Kowalski. Probably. I just hate that I missed it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 18, 2013 #212 Share Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) NTSB: No evidence of missile strike in TWA Flight 800 probe The agency has no radar evidence for any kind of target “intercepting” the plane before the fatal blast, the NTSB’s Joseph Kolly said during a Tuesday media briefing meant as refresher on a disaster that has inspired years of persistent conspiracy theories. Witness testimony was not consistent with any kind of missile strike, he said. Neither were the patterns of burns and pitting among the passengers or seats. “Ultimately, we wound up ruling out a bomb or missile strike,” Kolly said. http://www.politico....l#ixzz2ZPmZBLOp A simple review of the fuselage of TWA 800 shows no evidence of proximity-fused shrapnel damage from a missile attack, which further dismiss missiles claims. Edited July 18, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacsMom Posted July 18, 2013 #213 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Funny. The show last night had the radar from that night and they claim to show the line cluster hits that indicate another object right before first impact. Guess it's all in interpretation and agenda. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 18, 2013 #214 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Funny. The show last night had the radar from that night and they claim to show the line cluster hits that indicate another object right before first impact. Guess it's all in interpretation and agenda. You might want to check this out. Why the 'TWA Flight 800' Documentary Is Wrong http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/fly-wire/why-twa-flight-800-documentary-wrong#5Vk816vYkHxtlOXj.99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacsMom Posted July 18, 2013 #215 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Good link, SkyEagle. And I know you come from a military background and speak from knowledge. It would be the best case scenario if a spark ignited the empty center fuel tank and brought the plane down with all those victims in just a random, tragic, isolated incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacsMom Posted July 18, 2013 #216 Share Posted July 18, 2013 What amazes me is how experts can look at the exact same evidence and come up with completely different conclusions. So there is either deceit or ineptitude involved. One expert looks at seat fibers and sees no sign of explosive residue. Another one says there is. One expert says the explosion pattern came from inside out. Another says it clearly was dispelled to one side and came from an outside source. One expert looks at the radar and says no sign of a missile. Another says, yep, there it is, clear as a bell. Eyewitnesses claim to see streaking object(s) going up toward the plane before the explosion. Experts claim that there is no way that all those people saw what they think they saw. So, again, somebody is lying or somebody is an idiot. I'm just trying to find out which. And it makes sense to look at ALL evidence and opinions. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted July 18, 2013 #217 Share Posted July 18, 2013 MacsMom ...and don't forget the role of politicians in the incident. Honor and respect for the opinions of experts is good, but do not forget, do not disregard, the motives and power of the politicians involved. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted July 18, 2013 #218 Share Posted July 18, 2013 So, just to clarify, you discount all the eyewitnesses' testimony as being inaccurate, mistaken identity, or outright lies. Correct? (Now, I'm not getting into a debate as to what I personally think happened and what you personally think happened because I'm not going to participate in a zero sum game. I just want to know what your stance on the eyewitnesses is.) You will never get a straight answer from Don. Nunca 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacsMom Posted July 18, 2013 #219 Share Posted July 18, 2013 You will never get a straight answer from Don. Nunca But I DO get alot of exclamation points!!!!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 18, 2013 #220 Share Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) What amazes me is how experts can look at the exact same evidence and come up with completely different conclusions. So there is either deceit or ineptitude involved. We can go here and take a look. Memos warned of 747 fuel leaks Federal aviation and Boeing service records contain extensive documentation about where the wing and belly tanks on 747s are susceptible to leaks that can cause fire. NTSB Vice Chairman Robert Francis, who is heading the investigation into the crash of TWA Flight 800, has declined to compare how much credence investigators are giving to the bomb vs. leaky fuel theories. But investigators have been piecing together the section of the plane they believe will provide them with the most clues on what caused the belly and right wing tanks to rupture and burn, a sequence that most likely began about a half a minute after things began to go wrong shortly after it departed New York's John F. Kennedy Airport bound for Paris. The center section, between rows 17 and 28, is where the blast is believed to have originated, a source said. http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/5921 Next, we can go here to take a look at what steps were placed into motion after the crash of TWA 800. FAA Issues Emergency Order on Boeing 747 Fuel Pumps The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today ordered operators of Boeing 747 aircraft to immediately change fuel pump procedures to prevent "dry operation" that could result in ignition of the center fuel or horizontal stabilizer tanks. This is an interim action while the FAA and The Boeing Company determine the cause of premature wear on some pump shaft bearings. The FAA's Airworthiness Directive (AD) follows recent reports of pump failures due to premature wear of the shaft bearing. Operated in dry conditions, in which the parts are not covered by fuel, rotating parts could rub against other non-rotating parts. This metal-on-metal contact could cause hot spots and sparks, and a possible explosion. Therefore, the FAA has ordered operators to: Cease operation of the horizontal stabilizer tank on Boeing 747-400 series aircraft. Normally, the pumps in the horizontal tank are run until the tank is dry. http://aafo.com/news/FAA1203.htm Air Separator John Hickey, FAA Director of Aircraft Certification Service, holds a new device commonly called a 'air separator' that replaces oxygen in a aircraft fuel tank with nitrogen preventing potential flammable vapors seen here during a press conference July 16, 2008 at the National Transportation Safety Board training facility in Ashburn, Virginia. One day before the 12th anniversary of the crash of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island, the federal government Wednesday announced a new rule it said would eliminate the risk of exploding fuel tanks on jumbo jets. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Explosion in fuel tank caused TWA Flight 800 crash, investigators say The latest NTSB recommendations are the third set issued by the agency as a result of the July 1996 explosion that killed all 230 people aboard the New York to Paris-bound jumbo jet. Specifically, the NTSB urges the FAA to: • Examine the design practices of Boeing and other manufacturers to eliminate potential ignition hazards involving fuel tank components. • Review aircraft design wiring specifications to make sure low voltage fuel tank wires are separated from high voltage wires. • Require manufacturers to take steps to eliminate potentially hazardous silver-sulfide deposits on components inside fuel tanks. • Require the companies to improve training of maintenance of personnel so they will recognize and repair wiring problems in aging aircraft. The FAA has adopted most of the recommendations -- issuing almost 40 orders for design, maintenance and operational changes. But the NTSB noted it is taking time to phase in the improvements. In earlier efforts to deal with the problems, the board in December 1996 recommended changes designed to reduce vapors in fuel tanks; in April of 1998, it recommended changes in airplane wiring. Iran owned TWA jet same year one of its other 747s exploded The Boeing 747-100 jetliner that crashed off Long Island was operated by TWA for all but one of its nearly 25 years in service. For exactly 365 days in the mid-1970s, the plane belonged to the Imperial Iranian Air Force. No connection has been established between that fact and the fiery midair explosion that knocked the plane out of the sky last week, killing all 230 on board. But it was during the jet's 12-month stint in the Iranian military that another TWA 747 owned by Iran was destroyed near Madrid in a midair explosion much like the one that destroyed Flight 800 off Long Island last week. It was the only other time a 747 has burst into flames in midair. In regard to radar data, there is no evidence that missiles blasted TWA 800 out of the sky. http://www.ntsb.gov/...000/AAR0003.pdf One expert looks at seat fibers and sees no sign of explosive residue. Another one says there is. I might add that there was a dog-training explosive detection exercise on the aircraft about one month before the accident. One expert says the explosion pattern came from inside out. Another says it clearly was dispelled to one side and came from an outside source. We can take a look at these photos to determine who is right. There is no evidence anywhere on the fuselage that depicts a missile strike nor damage from a proximity fuse detonation of a missile, much less from three missiles. A C-5 transport assigned to my base in California, took a hit in number 4 engine from a surface-to-air missile over Iraq and yet it managed to return for a safe landing, but It took a while to repair the damage before the aircraft was returned to service. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, Ga. -- The C-5 Galaxy that was hit by a missile shortly after takeoff in Iraq on Jan. 8 receives permanent repairs here. The aircraft was returned to Air Mobility Command on Feb. 23. (U.S. Air Force photo by Sue Sapp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The C-5 was returned to Travis AFB, CA. after repairs were completed. Let's take a look at another aircraft that was struck by a missile over Iraq and note the damage. Edited July 18, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacsMom Posted July 19, 2013 #221 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Now THAT is the way to have a civil, well informed, fact based discussion. Thank you, SkyEagle. You have given me lots to chew on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 19, 2013 #222 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Now THAT is the way to have a civil, well informed, fact based discussion. Thank you, SkyEagle. You have given me lots to chew on. You are welcome! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted July 24, 2013 #223 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Like this Babe Ruth ? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where`s your Proof ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafterman Posted July 24, 2013 #224 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Sky Eagle - bringing it like a boss since 2006! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted July 25, 2013 #225 Share Posted July 25, 2013 The best proof is the actual Proof ! And TWA -800 was brought down by its own misshap ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now