Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

TWA 800 Shot Down by a Military Missile?


  • Please log in to reply
307 replies to this topic

#1    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 08 November 2011 - 01:30 AM

Transferred from the "9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop" thread as it clearly wasn't on that subject anymore...

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 November 2011 - 01:09 AM, said:

They  were mistaken. The missile they were referring to was incapable of  striking the TWA jet at the altitude the aircraft was flying. The  investigators found the problem in the center fuel tank...

That's  certainly the official story. I may have vaguely heard of this plane  crash, but since it was brought up, I figured I'd look into it a little  bit. I found a link from a site that has consistently provided me with  information that I've found to be credible, whatreallyhappened.com.  Here's an excerpt from their page on the crash:
************
In 1996 TWA Flight 800 was shot down south of Long     Island.The government of the United States, despite     the embarrassment of having been caught in court rigging     lab tests and lying in its reports, still officially     attributes the disaster to a spark in the center fuel     tank, while government spokespeople insist that the     witnesses who saw a missile hit the jumbo jet are all     drunks.


On the evening of July 17th, 1996, shortly after the     sun had set, but while the sky was still light, a Boeing 747-131 jetliner, TWA's     flight 800, was taking off from JFK airport on its way to     Paris, France. On board were 230     people. Approximately 11 minutes into the     flight, the 747 was flying at an altitude of 13,700 MSL,     or 13,700 feet above sea level. Normally higher at 11     minutes, flight 800 had delayed climbing to make room for     another jetliner descending into Rhode Island. The plane     was over the Atlantic ocean south of Long Island, New     York.

                  Posted Image
                           Just as flight 800 received clearance to initiate a     climb to cruise altitude, the plane exploded without any     warning. Thousands of pounds of kerosene, dumped from the     center and wing tanks, vaporized and ignited, creating a     fireball seen all along the coastline of Long Island.     Under the orange glow of the fireball, sections of the     747 tumbled into the ocean. So completely had the plane     broken up that weather radar     confused the expanding bubble of debris for a cloud.


The First Hints
     Almost at once, eyewitnesses     were being interviewed on radio and TV who reported that     something strange had preceded the explosion of the 747.     Witnesses, many on the ground, reported seeing a bright     object "streaking" towards the 747. The object     in question turned in midair as it closed on the jumbo     jet. Witnesses reported horizontal travel, as well as     vertical. The broad geographical range covered by the     eyewitnesses eliminates foreground/background confusion.     To be seen as being near the 747 from so many different     directions, the bright object had to actually be in the     immediate vicinity of the 747.

     Other pilots in the air     reported seeing a bright light near the jumbo jet before     it exploded.

     In the days following the disaster, many industry executivesprivately     concluded that TWA 800 had been shot down..

************

Source: http://whatreallyhap...ASH/TWA/twa.php

The article goes on, looks pretty good.


#2    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,134 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 08 November 2011 - 02:24 AM

View PostScott G, on 08 November 2011 - 01:30 AM, said:

Transferred from the "9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop" thread as it clearly wasn't on that subject anymore...



That's  certainly the official story. I may have vaguely heard of this plane  crash, but since it was brought up, I figured I'd look into it a little  bit. I found a link from a site that has consistently provided me with  information that I've found to be credible, whatreallyhappened.com.  Here's an excerpt from their page on the crash:
************
In 1996 TWA Flight 800 was shot down south of Long         Island.The government of the United States, despite         the embarrassment of having been caught in court rigging         lab tests and lying in its reports, still officially         attributes the disaster to a spark in the center fuel         tank, while government spokespeople insist that the         witnesses who saw a missile hit the jumbo jet are all         drunks.


On the evening of July 17th, 1996, shortly after the         sun had set, but while the sky was still light, a Boeing 747-131 jetliner, TWA's         flight 800, was taking off from JFK airport on its way to         Paris, France. On board were 230         people. Approximately 11 minutes into the         flight, the 747 was flying at an altitude of 13,700 MSL,         or 13,700 feet above sea level. Normally higher at 11         minutes, flight 800 had delayed climbing to make room for         another jetliner descending into Rhode Island. The plane         was over the Atlantic ocean south of Long Island, New         York.

                  Posted Image
                               Just as flight 800 received clearance to initiate a         climb to cruise altitude, the plane exploded without any         warning. Thousands of pounds of kerosene, dumped from the         center and wing tanks, vaporized and ignited, creating a         fireball seen all along the coastline of Long Island.         Under the orange glow of the fireball, sections of the         747 tumbled into the ocean. So completely had the plane         broken up that weather radar         confused the expanding bubble of debris for a cloud.


The First Hints
         Almost at once, eyewitnesses         were being interviewed on radio and TV who reported that         something strange had preceded the explosion of the 747.         Witnesses, many on the ground, reported seeing a bright         object "streaking" towards the 747. The object         in question turned in midair as it closed on the jumbo         jet. Witnesses reported horizontal travel, as well as         vertical. The broad geographical range covered by the         eyewitnesses eliminates foreground/background confusion.         To be seen as being near the 747 from so many different         directions, the bright object had to actually be in the         immediate vicinity of the 747.

         Other pilots in the air         reported seeing a bright light near the jumbo jet before         it exploded.

         In the days following the disaster, many industry executivesprivately         concluded that TWA 800 had been shot down..

************

Source: http://whatreallyhap...ASH/TWA/twa.php

The article goes on, looks pretty good.


There were those who have claimed that the missile was a shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missile, but, such a missile does not have the ability to take down a large aircraft at 13,000 feet, however, it can take out an engine.

Remember, the problem was in the fuel tank. Another case in point, an Airbus took a hit from a missile and landed safely, and a   C-5, which was based at Travis AFB, took a hit by a missile in #4 engine and landed safely as well.

I think the streak they saw, was the TWA jet in a steep climb after the fuel tank blew off to forward section of the fuselage. The aircraft, trailing flames, t would then be extremely tail heavy and such a condition would have forced the aircraft into a steep climb trailing smoke and flames. From a distance, it would look like a missile climbing into the sky. In regards to our C-141 blowing up on the flightline, I remarked that it was lucky the aircraft wasn't airborne when that circuit breaker was pushed in.

Quote

TWA 800

Because there was no evidence that a high-energy explosive device detonated in this (or any other) area of the airplane, this overpressure event could only have been caused by a fuel/air explosion in the CWT. Although only a small amount of fuel was present in the CWT of TWA 800, tests recreating the conditions of the flight showed the remaining fuel/air vapor to be flammable. A major reason for the flammability of the fuel/air vapor in the CWT of the 747 was the large amount of heat generated and transferred to the CWT by air conditioning packs located directly below the tank; with the CWT temperature raised to a sufficient level, a single ignition source could cause an explosion.

My link


Edited by skyeagle409, 08 November 2011 - 02:46 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 08 November 2011 - 12:43 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 November 2011 - 02:24 AM, said:

There were those who have claimed that the missile was a shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missile, but, such a missile does not have the ability to take down a large aircraft at 13,000 feet, however, it can take out an engine.

From what I've gathered, it wasn't a shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missile. After doing a little research on it, I found the following article. Of the theories expressed in it, I think Russell is the one who got it right:
**************

What Caused Tragic Downing of TWA Flight 800?
  
  •   In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the U.S.  government insists that mechanical failure was the cause of the 1996  crash of a 747 jetliner.
By Donn De Grand Pre

A catastrophic event occurred on July 17, 1996, at 8:31 p.m. when  Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was struck by at least one, and possibly  two, missiles at an altitude of 13,700 feet. There were innumerable eyewitness testimonies plus films, radar and  satellite evidence, and reports carried in such prestigious papers as  the July 29, 1996 Aviation Week and Space Technology confirming  this. The official government verdict, however, was that a  mechanical/electrical failure triggered the gigantic explosion, which  tore the 747 into three parts almost immediately.  

A July 19, 1996, Associated Press story asked a highly pertinent question: was it an accident or a terrorist act?  Initial signs pointed toward an "outside force," either a particle  beam weapon using the electro-magnetic effect, or an air-to-air missile  launched from a helicopter or ground-to-air from a surface craft.   'Early reports from reliable Air National Guard pilots in the air at the time indicate that the aircraft was "cut in two."   Retired Air Force General Benton Partin's studied opinion is that a  continuous rod warhead was the implement of destruction, and that it was  done deliberately and maliciously for its terrorist impact on the  public. Partin is probably the nation's leading expert on explosive devices.  The official government report scrubbed the incident with the usual  "mechanical failure" brush.  

An exceptionally well-documented video tape by Cdr. Bill Donaldson,  and Maj. Fred Meyer, the helicopter pilot immediately on the scene,  reveals that TWA 800 was probably taken out by two missile shots.   Consider the report from Richard Russell, a retired United airlines 747 pilot and a 30-year aircraft accident investigator.   Russell's report stated:

TWA flight 800 was shot down by a U.S. Navy Aegis missile fired from  a  guided missile ship which was in area W-105 about 30 miles from  where  TWA 800 blew up...{W-105) is a rather large area, budget  constraints  have dictated that missile firings be done closer to land  so that the  flight time for the P-3 monitor and tracking aircraft can  be reduced.

A recording of the flight path of the Navy's P-3 Orion  anti-submarine aircraft shows that it had passed about 6,000 feet above  TWA 800 just seconds prior to the explosion. On Aug. 20, 1996, Newsday reported that the Navy had revealed that the P-3 was communicating with a submarine off the coast of Cape May.  
Pierre Salinger, veteran journalist and press secretary for  President John F. Kennedy, spoke to a group of airline executives  gathered at Cannes, France, in mid-November 1996. Salinger revealed that  he had information from the U.S. Secret Service by way of his "French  intelligence sources that the U.S. Navy accidently shot down the plane."  

Both Salinger and Russell were attacked by the mainstream media,  claiming that they got their information from the Internet. Russell  later met with Salinger and stated that there is no doubt that  Salinger's information came from official U.S. sources.
**************

http://www.libertylo...312twa_800.html


#4    Mike 215

Mike 215

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 480 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 November 2011 - 04:08 PM

It really became a joke after a while. Salinger posted the French Government report on the internet. Up to that point the media was prasing the net as the best thing that ever happened since the printing press. After the report was put on the net it was taken off and the media started to denounce the net for not be trusted and full of lies and distortions. OF course the media did not denounce the net for the getting 50% of its income from porno. Money talks, BS walks.


#5    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,771 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 12 November 2011 - 02:10 AM

"TWA flight 800 was shot down by a U.S. Navy Aegis missile...."

For anyone that knows anything about US Naval weaponry, that statement alone should pretty much discredit the "journalists" who wrote this piece.  Hint, AEGIS is a system, not a missile.

Not to mention - and where all of these idiotic theories fail - the 400 or so crewmen and women all had no problem living with the fact that their ship shot down a 747 and killed several hundred innocent poeople.

By the way, which Ticonderoga class ship was it?  Surely these vaunted "journalists" could have easily figured that one out.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#6    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 12 November 2011 - 02:27 AM

View PostRafterman, on 12 November 2011 - 02:10 AM, said:

"TWA flight 800 was shot down by a U.S. Navy Aegis missile...."

For anyone that knows anything about US Naval weaponry, that statement alone should pretty much discredit the "journalists" who wrote this piece.  Hint, AEGIS is a system, not a missile.

Ever consider the possibility that it was shorthand for a missile fired by the AEGIS system?

View PostRafterman, on 12 November 2011 - 02:10 AM, said:

Not to mention - and where all of these idiotic theories fail - the 400 or so crewmen and women all had no problem living with the fact that their ship shot down a 747 and killed several hundred innocent people.

1- Prove to me that "400 or so crewmen and women" were in a position to know what truly happened. I currently am not aware of anyone who has publicly stated that they were in such a position.

There were certainly some people who were in a position to realize that the official story on this was a farce, however. Take, for instance, James Sanders:



******
Author James Sander's wife works for TWA. She lost     friends on flight 800, and as rumors of a missile kill of     flight 800 began to circulate within TWA, James was asked     to look into the matter.          In his book, "The     Downing Of TWA Flight 800" James Sanders related     the story of how one of the TWA employees working in the     Calverton hanger became so disgusted with what he saw as     a deliberate cover-up that he provided to James Sanders     two samples of cloth from seats from TWA 800, to be     tested by an outside, NON-government linked laboratory.

     On the seat fabric samples was a bright red residue     which had stained three rows of seats in the aircraft,     rows 17-19.

     Tests on the first sample revealed elements which     experts confirmed were consistent with the combustion     byproducts of a military solid fuel rocket motor of the     powdered aluminum and perchlorate type.

     James Sanders then gave his second and last sample to     CBS news for them to have tested. CBS promptly turned     around and gave the sample back to the government.

     Once the sample had been returned, the government     declared that the red residue was seat glue, choosing to     simply ignore the fact that it has been seen on only     three adjacent rows of seats out of the entire aircraft.

     The FBI, showing a double standard, then went after James Sanders for theft of     part of the airplane, even though the FBI's man in     charge, James Kallstrom, had removed a souvenir from the     aircraft himself.

     Meanwhile, tests conducted on     the glue used on the seatsand the Atlantic seawater     in the area proved once and for all that the red residue     was not glue, and yet another of the government's lies     stood revealed.

******

Source: http://whatreallyhap...ASH/TWA/twa.php

The guy tries to reveal the truth and he gets charged with theft -.-


View PostRafterman, on 12 November 2011 - 02:10 AM, said:

By the way, which Ticonderoga class ship was it?  Surely these vaunted "journalists" could have easily figured that one out.


Perhaps. Feel free to ask them. I just thought I'd investigate a bit on whether this was another cover-up like 9/11; looks like it to me. But you're free to disagree.


#7    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,362 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 12 November 2011 - 03:09 AM

View PostScott G, on 12 November 2011 - 02:27 AM, said:

Ever consider the possibility that it was shorthand for a missile fired by the AEGIS system?

I agree with Rafter. Anybody with even remote knowledge of the missiles and the systems would call the missile by it's right name. It's like a a submariner calling his sub a ship. It's a big no no on so many levels.

Quote

1- Prove to me that "400 or so crewmen and women" were in a position to know what truly happened. I currently am not aware of anyone who has publicly stated that they were in such a position.

You don't think "400 or so crewmen and women" would be able to put 2 and 2 together and get 4?! That is simply a ridiculous assertion. How do you think the target was acquired and firing ordered? By the captain alone? That is not how CiC works.

Snipped the rest of the irrelevant information.

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#8    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 12 November 2011 - 04:19 AM

View Postbadeskov, on 12 November 2011 - 03:09 AM, said:

View PostScott G, on 12 November 2011 - 02:27 AM, said:

Ever consider the possibility that it was shorthand for a missile fired by the AEGIS system?

I agree with Rafter. Anybody with even remote knowledge of the missiles and the systems would call the missile by it's right name.

Who are you, exactly? The person who called it an AEGIS missile was a pilot for 28 years, an air safety representative for 26 years, and also served as an airplane accident investigator in 2 airplane crashes. This doesn't mean he was familiar with the AEGIS system, so perhaps he didn't quote his source completely accurately, but who cares? Quoting a site on the subject:
****
As reported, Pierre Salinger's long-time French Intelligence contact  told him that the US Navy accidentally shot down TWA Flight 800 and gave  him a report by Captain Richard Russell. Russell, a retired 747 pilot and former crash investigator, reported that the jet was hit by a Navy missile. In an affidavit  recently filed in a lawsuit against the government, Russell stands by  his report and says it was based on information relayed to him from a  friend who attended a high-level briefing on the crash. Russell's report  had circulated on the Internet and been denied by the Navy before it  was given to Salinger.  
****

Source: http://www.serendipi...d2/salinger.htm

View Postbadeskov, on 12 November 2011 - 03:09 AM, said:

You don't think "400 or so crewmen and women" would be able to put 2 and 2 together and get 4?!

I didn't say that. I said: "Prove to me that "400 or so crewmen and women" were in a position to  know what truly happened. I currently am not aware of anyone who has  publicly stated that they were in such a position." You want to try your hand at proving it, be my guest.

View Postbadeskov, on 12 November 2011 - 03:09 AM, said:

How do you think the target was acquired and firing ordered? By the captain alone? That is not how CiC works.

I never said that's how CiC works.

Edited by Scott G, 12 November 2011 - 05:04 AM.


#9    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 13 November 2011 - 11:31 AM

I was never happy with the official verdict on the cause of this crash.

This effected me a great deal as I had joined an up and growing company which I could only describe as a dream opportunity. Unfortunately (more so for the people on board) the owner of the company was on-board this very flight.  Soon after the family sold the company to a German outfit who moved operations to Germany leaving us all out of work.

Very sad and I must admit a very strange explanation given for this tragedy.

Posted Image

#10    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,771 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 13 November 2011 - 03:30 PM

View PostScott G, on 12 November 2011 - 02:27 AM, said:

Ever consider the possibility that it was shorthand for a missile fired by the AEGIS system?



1- Prove to me that "400 or so crewmen and women" were in a position to know what truly happened. I currently am not aware of anyone who has publicly stated that they were in such a position.

There were certainly some people who were in a position to realize that the official story on this was a farce, however. Take, for instance, James Sanders:



******
Author James Sander's wife works for TWA. She lost     friends on flight 800, and as rumors of a missile kill of     flight 800 began to circulate within TWA, James was asked     to look into the matter.          In his book, "The     Downing Of TWA Flight 800" James Sanders related     the story of how one of the TWA employees working in the     Calverton hanger became so disgusted with what he saw as     a deliberate cover-up that he provided to James Sanders     two samples of cloth from seats from TWA 800, to be     tested by an outside, NON-government linked laboratory.

     On the seat fabric samples was a bright red residue     which had stained three rows of seats in the aircraft,     rows 17-19.

     Tests on the first sample revealed elements which     experts confirmed were consistent with the combustion     byproducts of a military solid fuel rocket motor of the     powdered aluminum and perchlorate type.

     James Sanders then gave his second and last sample to     CBS news for them to have tested. CBS promptly turned     around and gave the sample back to the government.

     Once the sample had been returned, the government     declared that the red residue was seat glue, choosing to     simply ignore the fact that it has been seen on only     three adjacent rows of seats out of the entire aircraft.

     The FBI, showing a double standard, then went after James Sanders for theft of     part of the airplane, even though the FBI's man in     charge, James Kallstrom, had removed a souvenir from the     aircraft himself.

     Meanwhile, tests conducted on     the glue used on the seatsand the Atlantic seawater     in the area proved once and for all that the red residue     was not glue, and yet another of the government's lies     stood revealed.

******

Source: http://whatreallyhap...ASH/TWA/twa.php

The guy tries to reveal the truth and he gets charged with theft -.-





Perhaps. Feel free to ask them. I just thought I'd investigate a bit on whether this was another cover-up like 9/11; looks like it to me. But you're free to disagree.

Ever consider that the person who wrote the story didn't know what they were talking about?  If they can't get one simple fact like that one right, why do you think they got the rest right?

As far as the crewmen not knowing what happened are concerned, you've never been in the US Navy and served on a warship have you?

It's also obvious that you have no idea how naval ordinance is catalogued, tracked, and accounted for.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#11    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 13 November 2011 - 04:46 PM

View PostRafterman, on 13 November 2011 - 03:30 PM, said:

Ever consider that the person who wrote the story didn't know what they were talking about?  If they can't get one simple fact like that one right, why do you think they got the rest right?

Leave it to the armchair critics to nitpick. Contrary to popular opinion amoungst you, it's not a sin to refer to a missile shot from an AEGIS ship to be called an AEGIS missile. In the meantime, I see you've completely ignored all the actually relevant data that destroys the official story regarding the reason for the loss of life of all the TWA 800 passengers.

View PostRafterman, on 13 November 2011 - 03:30 PM, said:

As far as the crewmen not knowing what happened are concerned, you've never been in the US Navy and served on a warship have you?

Sigh. I never said no one in the US Navy knew what happened. I just wanted proof that "400 or so crewmen and women" would have known if an AEGIS missile had downed TWA 800. One of them apparently -did- know the truth and talked about it, however, or we'd never have gotten Captain Russell's report.

Edited by Scott G, 13 November 2011 - 04:48 PM.


#12    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,134 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 13 November 2011 - 09:11 PM

View PostScott G, on 13 November 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

Leave it to the armchair critics to nitpick. Contrary to popular opinion amoungst you, it's not a sin to refer to a missile shot from an AEGIS ship to be called an AEGIS missile. In the meantime, I see you've completely ignored all the actually relevant data that destroys the official story regarding the reason for the loss of life of all the TWA 800 passengers.

Sigh. I never said no one in the US Navy knew what happened. I just wanted proof that "400 or so crewmen and women" would have known if an AEGIS missile had downed TWA 800. One of them apparently -did- know the truth and talked about it, however, or we'd never have gotten Captain Russell's report.

What happened to TWA 800, is what happened to C-141, 0253, at Travis AFB, CA.,  and that is, the aircraft blew up  because of electrical shorts inside the fuel tanks in the presence of fumes. I was standing about 300 feet to the left of this aircraft when I saw the second explosion. The aircraft was to be flown on a local training mission and I once remarked that it was lucky for the aircrew that the fuel tank didn't blow up in flight.

Posted Image

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#13    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 13 November 2011 - 10:19 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 13 November 2011 - 09:11 PM, said:

What happened to TWA 800, is what happened to C-141, 0253, at Travis AFB, CA.,  and that is, the aircraft blew up  because of electrical shorts inside the fuel tanks in the presence of fumes. I was standing about 300 feet to the left of this aircraft when I saw the second explosion. The aircraft was to be flown on a local training mission and I once remarked that it was lucky for the aircrew that the fuel tank didn't blow up in flight.

I had never heard of this explosion before you mentioned it, but I haven't heard that it was anything other than what you say. However, the case is quite different with TWA 800, as I have pointed out several times now. I strongly recommend that you read the affidavit of Richard Russell, who was a pilot for more than 25 years and was also a flight crash investigator, when the government came down on him for revealing what I believe was the truth of what happened to TWA 800.

Quoting what I wrote before on the subject in case you missed it:
****
As reported, Pierre Salinger's long-time French Intelligence contact   told him that the US Navy accidentally shot down TWA Flight 800 and gave   him a report by Captain Richard Russell. Russell, a retired 747 pilot and former crash investigator, reported that the jet was hit by a Navy missile. In an affidavit   recently filed in a lawsuit against the government, Russell stands by   his report and says it was based on information relayed to him from a   friend who attended a high-level briefing on the crash. Russell's report   had circulated on the Internet and been denied by the Navy before it   was given to Salinger.  
****


#14    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,771 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 14 November 2011 - 01:57 AM

View PostScott G, on 13 November 2011 - 10:19 PM, said:

I had never heard of this explosion before you mentioned it, but I haven't heard that it was anything other than what you say. However, the case is quite different with TWA 800, as I have pointed out several times now. I strongly recommend that you read the affidavit of Richard Russell, who was a pilot for more than 25 years and was also a flight crash investigator, when the government came down on him for revealing what I believe was the truth of what happened to TWA 800.

Quoting what I wrote before on the subject in case you missed it:
****
As reported, Pierre Salinger's long-time French Intelligence contact   told him that the US Navy accidentally shot down TWA Flight 800 and gave   him a report by Captain Richard Russell. Russell, a retired 747 pilot and former crash investigator, reported that the jet was hit by a Navy missile. In an affidavit   recently filed in a lawsuit against the government, Russell stands by   his report and says it was based on information relayed to him from a   friend who attended a high-level briefing on the crash. Russell's report   had circulated on the Internet and been denied by the Navy before it   was given to Salinger.  
****

There's also the little issue of there not being an US Navy warships in the area of the crash.

Anyway, who could have fired a missile? The FBI did identify some military assets that were in the area at the time, including a US Navy P3 Orion aircraft, and a US Coast Guard cutter. Neither asset has an anti-aircraft or missile capability. Radar data from four different sites also found four unidentified boats within 6nm of Flight 800, all but one of which responded to assist in search and rescue. Shoulder launched weapons do not have anything like the range required to reach the aircraft from the shore.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4099 - nice analysis here by the way - you know - since you're looking for the "truth" and all.

BTW, still waiting on the name of the aledged ship that fired the missile.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#15    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 November 2011 - 03:11 AM

View PostRafterman, on 14 November 2011 - 01:57 AM, said:

There's also the little issue of there not being an US Navy warships in the area of the crash.

Prove it.

View PostRafterman, on 14 November 2011 - 01:57 AM, said:

Anyway, who could have fired a missile? The FBI did identify some military assets that were in the area at the time, including a US Navy P3 Orion aircraft, and a US Coast Guard cutter. Neither asset has an anti-aircraft or missile capability. Radar data from four different sites also found four unidentified boats within 6nm of Flight 800, all but one of which responded to assist in search and rescue. Shoulder launched weapons do not have anything like the range required to reach the aircraft from the shore.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4099 - nice analysis here by the way - you know - since you're looking for the "truth" and all.

BTW, still waiting on the name of the aledged ship that fired the missile.

I took a look at that "analysis". It doesn't even -mention- Captain Richard Russell's email, not to mention his affidavit. It's easy to write some hit piece against those who disagree with the official story. What Captain Richard Russell did was much harder; he faced media scorn and even went so far as to file an affidavit, apparently against the government's version of events. Did you even read it?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users