TWA 800 Hit By Missile?

[Babe Ruth]

Of course there is something called proof and evidence to confirm your opinion.

Yet all I see posted is pure speculation BR.

You think a missile hit TWA800?

Where is your proof? (I won't hold my breath waiting)

Nothing can be proven to a man in denial sir, and that's the situation with you.

If you had bothered to read the original post, you would have noted that more than 100 credible witnesses (FBI term, not mine) reported seeing a missle.

If you had studied the event as it was happening, you would be aware of a big turf battle between NTSB and FBI, with the latter winning. Surprise, surprise, the story was controlled.

If you had bothered to visit Benton Partin's website, you would have the benefit of his experience and insight to help your own analysis.

But you did not, or at least you post as though you did not consult any other sources of information.

The FAA was aware of the turf battle between 2 other federal agencies, one supposedly independent, and thus it was aware of the political nature of the event and its 'investigation.' As Kowalski subsequently pointed out, the AD (that's Airworthiness Directive) that eventually came out was not implemented for 6 or 8 years.

Contrast that to the speedy grounding of the 787 series over a very real problem, and the insightful person might begin to see what happened. The NONinsightful person won't bother himself, and will simply regurgitate what he was told to think by NBC et al.

Bummer, man.

[Babe Ruth]

I live about 7 miles where it blew up.my friends and I heard it blow up it sounded like a huge boom or thunder.

There was a story in the paper that navy missile ship was off the coast of Long Island.

This plane was shot down, there where guys fishing that say a bright light going towards it.

But the governments spin was this was fuel leaking out lol.

The goverment can cover up a missile getting fired lol

It's been years since I've studied this issue, but I'm pretty sure there is also testimony from a crew of a military aircraft in the area, and that testimony, however suppressed in the media, also corroborated the 100+ people on the ground who saw the missle.

[DONTEATUS]

OMG ! Babe Ruth are you telling everyone that THe Navy Blew this aircraft outta the Sky?

IT was a massive Fuel tank electrical spark ANd Explosion ! Do your Home work !

[Babe Ruth]

OMG ! Babe Ruth are you telling everyone that THe Navy Blew this aircraft outta the Sky?

IT was a massive Fuel tank electrical spark ANd Explosion ! Do your Home work !

No Don, it was a missle. TWA800 as a story from start to finish is a perfect example of how the Executive Branch of the government took charge of the aftermath of an event, and covered up something. The only real question is how it happened. As usual, there were numerous military assets in close proximity to the event.

I still think it was an accident.

The instant giveaway that something unusual had happened I saw completely by accident, but I did see it. Sitting at home with my young family watching TV, normal broadcast was suspended as Clinton came on TV. Cripes, I thought we had gone to war with Russia!

Then the big brouhaha between NTSB and FBI, at the same time with the numerous witnesses who had seen the ascending missle.

Then a ****ing stoopid AD that was 8 years coming. A complete farce, so typical of wicked men in government who would lie to their people.

[skyeagle409]

I live about 7 miles where it blew up.my friends and I heard it blow up it sounded like a huge boom or thunder. There was a story in the paper that navy missile ship was off the coast of Long Island.

This plane was shot down, there where guys fishing that say a bright light going towards it.

Apparently, radar data did not show a missile heading toward TWA 800 and there was no NOTAM issued for a missile launch at that location.

But the governments spin was this was fuel leaking out.

The fuel did was not leaking out. Read the story again.

[skyeagle409]

No Don, it was a missle.

Impossible, because radar data did not depicted any such missile launch. So once again, you have reconfirmed that you were duped by another false story. Your track record for accepting false stories is very clear.

[skyeagle409]

Where did you think the missile came from? A Naval Missile Boat?

I don't know if you are aware of naval vessel procedures or anything with regards to missile drill or live fire exercises (my father was in the Navy for 23 years and worked on several missile boats), considering that missile boats had over 150+ sailors on it, you'd think those sailors knew a live missile was fired off their bow.

Hell, before launching, it's announced to clear the bow for safety reasons. Why hasn't any of them spoken up after 20 years?

Conspiracies such as a naval missile boat shot down TWA 800 rely on the opinion that only certain few on a naval vessel knew a missile was fired off their boat. Which is completely based off ignorance.

I have often said that claims of conspiracist are ignorant-based and the conspiracy claim of TWA 800 is just another example where I was right on the money.

[Rafterman]

If you had bothered to read the original post, you would have noted that more than 100 credible witnesses (FBI term, not mine) reported seeing a missle.

So 100 people who saw a flash in the sky, saw a streak of light heading upwards, and then heard a boom are credible?

Unfortunately, they had no idea what they were looking at and were wrong in their perception of the event.

The flash they saw was the explosion of the fuel tank. When they looked and saw the light heading upwards, they were looking at the rear portion of the 747 in a death climb having lost its nose section. They sound they they heard that they assumed was a missile strike was the sound of the initial explosion finally reaching their ears.

You know, because light travels faster than sound.

And if you're still convinced it was a missile strike, analyze the radar data and show where what SkyEagle said was incorrect. After that, find the ship that fired said missile and get one of the 200 or so crew members to go public about it.

[RaptorBites]

So 100 people who saw a flash in the sky, saw a streak of light heading upwards, and then heard a boom are credible?

Unfortunately, they had no idea what they were looking at and were wrong in their perception of the event.

The flash they saw was the explosion of the fuel tank. When they looked and saw the light heading upwards, they were looking at the rear portion of the 747 in a death climb having lost its nose section. They sound they they heard that they assumed was a missile strike was the sound of the initial explosion finally reaching their ears.

You know, because light travels faster than sound.

And if you're still convinced it was a missile strike, analyze the radar data and show where what SkyEagle said was incorrect. After that, find the ship that fired said missile and get one of the 200 or so crew members to go public about it.

I wouldn't hold my breath for BR to provide evidence.

Probably provide some snark remark about how the US Government are known liars and are lying about this one, hence why no evidence has been brought forward.

I mean seriously, the government was not able to cover up a semen stain on Lewinski's dress, yet able to cover up 9/11 and TWA 800?

[DONTEATUS]

We all can agree on that one rafterman& Raptorbites ! BR will indeed go down like he was shot like a missle hit !

[Babe Ruth]

So 100 people who saw a flash in the sky, saw a streak of light heading upwards, and then heard a boom are credible?

Unfortunately, they had no idea what they were looking at and were wrong in their perception of the event.

The flash they saw was the explosion of the fuel tank. When they looked and saw the light heading upwards, they were looking at the rear portion of the 747 in a death climb having lost its nose section. They sound they they heard that they assumed was a missile strike was the sound of the initial explosion finally reaching their ears.

You know, because light travels faster than sound.

And if you're still convinced it was a missile strike, analyze the radar data and show where what SkyEagle said was incorrect. After that, find the ship that fired said missile and get one of the 200 or so crew members to go public about it.

Clearly sir, we are 2 different individuals with probably more differences than similarities.

From the beginning, and it was random chance that I happened to be watching TV when Clinton came on, this has been a coverup.

You have demonstrated clearly that you are somehow colorblind when it comes to coverups. By that I mean you are unable to perceive coverups, and accept whatever story is thrown out.

The radar tracks you hold as some sort of Sky delivered Holy Grail, have nothing at all to do with what, or how, people on the ground perceived the event. I am happy to accept the radar tracks, but they really don't prove much. Certainly they are moot as to any coverup.

Digging around last night, I found an old copy of AW&ST from December 15, 1997. The article on page 34, entitled "Report Cites Obstacles To Witness Interviews" documents yet another aspect of the coverup. Assuming that you are interested, I will enter some of those little facts. I also assume, perhaps wrongly, that you were already aware of the battle between FBI and NTSB that happened and was reported on, during the investigation of that accident.

As the witness group from NTSB was about to start interviewing, the following:

"Two days after the...crash, as the witness group was preparing to start interviewing witnesses, an FBI agent informed NTSB officials that the bureau 'was not prepared to share any information outside the NTSB, so parties (to the safety board investigation) could not be involved. The NTSB had named one of its investigators, Bruce Magladry, to head the witness group, which initially included representatives of TWA, ALPA, and the FAA."

"On July 21 1996, the report states, AUSAttorney Valerie Caproni informed Magladry and Norm Wiemeyer, head of the Flight 800 probe's operations group, 'that no interviews were to be conducted by the NTSB.' Safety Board investigators could review FBI supplied documents on the witnesses, 'provided no notes were taken and no copies were made.'"

So just as happened 5 years later with 911, the NTSB was told to go to the corner and keep your mouth shut.

You, my friend, are unable to perceive coverup, but this is the nuts and bolts of the coverup that took place regarding TWA800.

There is a reason for the coverup, and it's most likely that the government screwed up somehow or other, and it was trying to keeep it secret. No big deal really, because it is standard behavior for the government.

[Rafterman]

Clearly sir, we are 2 different individuals with probably more differences than similarities.

From the beginning, and it was random chance that I happened to be watching TV when Clinton came on, this has been a coverup.

You have demonstrated clearly that you are somehow colorblind when it comes to coverups. By that I mean you are unable to perceive coverups, and accept whatever story is thrown out.

The radar tracks you hold as some sort of Sky delivered Holy Grail, have nothing at all to do with what, or how, people on the ground perceived the event. I am happy to accept the radar tracks, but they really don't prove much. Certainly they are moot as to any coverup.

Digging around last night, I found an old copy of AW&ST from December 15, 1997. The article on page 34, entitled "Report Cites Obstacles To Witness Interviews" documents yet another aspect of the coverup. Assuming that you are interested, I will enter some of those little facts. I also assume, perhaps wrongly, that you were already aware of the battle between FBI and NTSB that happened and was reported on, during the investigation of that accident.

As the witness group from NTSB was about to start interviewing, the following:

"Two days after the...crash, as the witness group was preparing to start interviewing witnesses, an FBI agent informed NTSB officials that the bureau 'was not prepared to share any information outside the NTSB, so parties (to the safety board investigation) could not be involved. The NTSB had named one of its investigators, Bruce Magladry, to head the witness group, which initially included representatives of TWA, ALPA, and the FAA."

"On July 21 1996, the report states, AUSAttorney Valerie Caproni informed Magladry and Norm Wiemeyer, head of the Flight 800 probe's operations group, 'that no interviews were to be conducted by the NTSB.' Safety Board investigators could review FBI supplied documents on the witnesses, 'provided no notes were taken and no copies were made.'"

So just as happened 5 years later with 911, the NTSB was told to go to the corner and keep your mouth shut.

You, my friend, are unable to perceive coverup, but this is the nuts and bolts of the coverup that took place regarding TWA800.

There is a reason for the coverup, and it's most likely that the government screwed up somehow or other, and it was trying to keeep it secret. No big deal really, because it is standard behavior for the government.

Ooh, playing the "sir" card. I must have struck a nerve.

Standard deflection noted.

Radar tracks prove nothing? Interesting.

Governmental interdepartmental p***ing matches are now proof of coverups? Well then everything must be a coverup then.

[Babe Ruth]

Please Rafterman, explain to me the significance of the radar tracks. I'm all ears. See you after lunch, and hoping for some substance but not holding my breath.

[skyeagle409]

The radar tracks you hold as some sort of Sky delivered Holy Grail, have nothing at all to do with what, or how, people on the ground perceived the event.

People saw a flaming TWA 800 climbing into the sky that night because its center-of-gravity had shifted to the rear of the aircraft, which caused the aircraft to climb as a steep angle.

You, my friend, are unable to perceive coverup, but this is the nuts and bolts of the coverup that took place regarding TWA800.

There was no coverup. Problems were noted in the fuel tank and nothing to do with a coverup. There was no missile in the sky that night that intersected the flight path of TWA 800. .

[regeneratia]

why on earth would ppl find skeptoid a valid source?

Here's a quick and good analysis by Brian Dunning for his Skeptoid podcast:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4099

In a nutshell, no one saw a missile because there wasn't one. What they saw was simply the body of the aircraft streaking upward following the explosion and the forward part of the fuselage falling away. Given their distance from the explosion, they saw it before they heard it, thus leading many to believe that what they were seeing and hearing was a missile strike. Also important to point out, there were no military assets in the area that were armed with SAMs and the aircraft was out of range for a shoulder fired weapon.

[RaptorBites]

why on earth would ppl find skeptoid a valid source?

Exactly how does that invalidate Rafter's post?

[regeneratia]

Exactly how does that invalidate Rafter's post?

the intent was not to refute. Think about it.

[RaptorBites]

the intent was not to refute. Think about it.

You question skeptoid as being refutable. That has zero consequences as to where Rafter man got his quote/article.

By questioning the validity of a statement based on its location, is an opinion that asserts you find the statement false.

Again....how does the location of said statement invalidate Rafter's point?

Edited May 28, 2013 by RaptorBites

[regeneratia]

You question skeptoid as being refutable. That has zero consequences as to where Rafter man got his quote/article.

By questioning the validity of a statement based on its location, is an opinion that asserts you find the statement false.

Again....how does the location of said statement invalidate Rafter's point?

that is you opinion, raptor. As I have pointed out, you are inaccurate in your ability to determine my motivations for things. I understand how you can be so inaccurate. I am pretty certain that you and I have nothing in common, while commonality leads to accurate understandings.

So why on earth would one deem Skeptiod to be a valid source of information? Can you give me a reason why? There has to be something you can think of. If you find it, I will read it and consider it. But this is the end of discussion along this line.

I am out of this discussion. But I will read on it some more. I remember people talking about a missle at the time, way back when. I was online, read the news on it, went to alternative media even then.

Edited May 28, 2013 by regeneratia

[DONTEATUS]

And which movie is "Skeptoid " in ? Salt water always gets them I think?

[RaptorBites]

that is you opinion, raptor. As I have pointed out, you are inaccurate in your ability to determine my motivations for things. I understand how you can be so inaccurate. I am pretty certain that you and I have nothing in common, while commonality leads to accurate understandings.

Regardless if we share a common interest or not. How does that invalidate a statement made?

I do not know how to make that anymore clearer than that?

So why on earth would one deem Skeptiod to be a valid source of information? Can you give me a reason why? There has to be something you can think of. If you find it, I will read it and consider it. But this is the end of discussion along this line.

Why on earth is it not a valid source of information in your opinion? Just because you do not like the source does not mean it is not valid. If you want to trash the source, you must first come up with evidence pointing to the source as being invalid to begin with. Otherwise, all your displaying is your own bias.

I am out of this discussion.

Of course you are.

I had already asked you why you feel skeptoid is not a valid source of information and YOU COULDN'T ANSWER such a simple question. Time to turn tail and run.

But I will read on it some more. I remember people talking about a missle at the time, way back when. I was online, read the news on it, went to alternative media even then.

Yes, once you are able to determine rumors from fact, please come back and give us an analysis.

[Babe Ruth]

You question skeptoid as being refutable. That has zero consequences as to where Rafter man got his quote/article.

By questioning the validity of a statement based on its location, is an opinion that asserts you find the statement false.

Again....how does the location of said statement invalidate Rafter's point?

I'm sure he'll be back to clarify, but at this point in time Rafterman's point is rather vague. It seems his only point is that the official narrative is true, and somehow or the other radar tracks presented by Sky are supposed to prove it.

Like Sky, he completely ignores all the other aspects to this historical event, or at least prefers not to discuss it.

He won't touch the intervention of the White House to the TV audience, won't touch the disgusting public brouhaha between FBI and NTSB, won't touch the testimony of more than 100 witnesses, won't touch the input of a USAF General on the subject which contradicts the official story, and he won't touch the silly AD and its timing by the FAA.

Who knows, maybe he will come back and address all those things?

You could do that yourself, if you were so inclined.

[skyeagle409]

Like Sky, he completely ignores all the other aspects to this historical event, or at least prefers not to discuss it.

On the contrary, there is no evidence of a missile launch nor missile strike and to underline that fact, you have failed to provide evidence of a missile strike..

He won't touch the intervention of the White House to the TV audience, won't touch the disgusting public brouhaha between FBI and NTSB, won't touch the testimony of more than 100 witnesses, won't touch the input of a USAF General on the subject which contradicts the official story, and he won't touch the silly AD and its timing by the FAA.

What did those witnesses say they saw that can't be explained by the flaming wreckage of TWA 800 zooming into the night sky from a distance?

[05854]

There was a really good episode of the show "Conspiracy?" on the History Channel, which is available to watch on Youtube, that talks about TWA Flight 800. I would post it, but I think it would be taken off because of copyright issues. But anywho, it's really interesting to watch. It presents several different theories.

Excellent topic Kowalski!

And well worthy of dicscussion and debate.

Whether it be an act of god or a missile or sabotage.

Taken from http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/twa.php

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800_alternative_theories

What are ya'lls thoughts on this?

[05854]

There was a really good episode of the show "Conspiracy?" on the History Channel, which is available to watch on Youtube, that talks about TWA Flight 800. I would post it, but I think it would be taken off because of copyright issues. But anywho, it's really interesting to watch. It presents several different theories.

Taken from http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/twa.php

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800_alternative_theories

What are ya'lls thoughts on this?

Excellent topic Kowalski!

And well worthy of dicscussion and debate.

Whether it be an act of god or a missile or sabotage