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.


- - - - -

TWA 800 Hit By Missile?


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:31 PM

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.

Quote

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.



Quote

The New York Post, in its story of September 22, 1996, reported,

Law-enforcement sources said the hardest evidence gathered so far overwhelmingly suggests a surface-to-air missile...
The FBI interviewed 154 "credible" witnesses -- including scientists, schoolteachers, Army personnel and business executives -- who described seeing a missile heading through the sky just before TWA 800 exploded.
"Some of these people are extremely, extremely credible," a top federal official said.
FBI technicians mapped the various paths -- points in the sky where the witnesses said they saw the rising "flare-like" object -- and determined that the "triangulated" convergence point was virtually where the jumbo jet initially exploded.

The New York Times, on July 19th, 1996, reported,

" [ Witnesses reported ] a "streak of light" hitting the plane just before it blew up."

And perhaps most tellingly, from the Associated Press, on September 23, 1996,

"...a source...said on condition of anonymity... ``There's metal bent in, metal bent out. Metal you can't tell. I see a hole going in and a hole going out..."

Taken from http://whatreallyhap...ASH/TWA/twa.php

Quote

William S. Donaldson, a retired Naval officer, formed the Associated Retired Aviation Professionals (ARAP) to investigate the TWA 800 crash. He authored the "Interim Report on the Crash of TWA Flight 800 and the Actions of the NTSB and the FBI" (The Donaldson Report), which was released on July 17, 1998, two years before the NTSB's Final Report. In it, Donaldson stated that TWA 800 was struck by two missiles, fired from the water, most likely as a terrorist attack, and subsequently the FBI and NTSB conspired to cover-up this fact due to political pressure.[38]
Donaldson disputed the CWT fuel/air vapor explosion scenario, stating that "In the history of aviation, there has never been an in-flight explosion in any Boeing airliner of a Jet-A Kerosene fuel vapor/air mixture in any tank, caused by mechanical failure."[38] Eyewitness, debris field, metallurgical, and victim injury evidence were all cited by Donaldson proof of the missile-attack scenario.[38] Donaldson acknowledged James Sander's theory of an accidental shootdown, and did not rule out U.S. Navy involvement; however, he viewed circumstantial evidence of a terrorist attack "more compelling." [38]
Much of the report dealt with Donaldson's assertions of a conspired cover-up by the FBI and NTSB, in co-operation with the Justice Department.[38] Donaldson believed that the Clinton Administration wanted to hide the actual cause of the crash for political reasons, specifically the upcoming presidential elections.[38] Donaldson concluded his report with the request that Congress should hold Congressional hearings into the crash and/or request that the Justice Department appoint an Independent Counsel to investigate (neither of which happened).[38]
Donaldson received support and funding from the advocacy group Accuracy in Media,[38] who promoted his views. He died in 2001; the ARAP website is still active.

Taken from http://en.wikipedia....native_theories


What are ya'lls thoughts on this?


#2    Sweetpumper

Sweetpumper

    Heatseeker

  • Member
  • 9,558 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Avengers Tower

Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:38 PM

I'm sure skyeagle is compiling links and pics right now.

"At it's most basic level, science is supposed to represent the investigation of the unexplained, not the explanation of the uninvestigated."
- Hunt for the Skinwalker

"So many people forget that the first country the Nazis invaded was their own." Dr. Abraham Erskine

#3    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:06 PM

Quote

TWA 800 Missile Topic:
Big Problems with the Government's Theory



In millions of 747 flights since the first one on February 9, 1969, there has NEVER been an accident caused by an exploding Center Wing Tank!

Failure to find an ignition source means the NTSB’s theory (widely reported as fact) is ONLY speculation. Speculation is not the same as fact except on some "news" programs.

Jet A type fuel does not explode easily. Measures taken by government "researchers" to produce a "Made for TV" fuel tank explosion video prove just that. They actually added highly explosive hydrogen and propane gas to the tank as a "simulant". They also used a very powerful ignition source, much different than ignition sources under consideration as the cause of the TWA disaster.




Taken from http://www.angelfire...tanktheory.html



And what gets me, is that this happened in '96. It wasn't until 2004 that they began REQUIRING pilots to keep their tanks full so they wouldn't explode! Now, tell me, if this is what brought down TWA 800, like the government says, why didn't they do this sooner?


#4    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,567 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:30 PM

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.

Edited by Rafterman, 23 May 2013 - 07:30 PM.


#5    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,344 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:33 PM

Good topic, and you've covered most of the bases, but missed the comments of USAF General Benton Partin.  Sorry for no link, but he does have a website, or used to.  He is the same fellow who inspected the Murrah Building and pleaded with Congress to leave the building stand so that a proper investigation could be conducted.

Your point that the Airworthiness Directive against 747s came 8 years later is right on.  As I recall, there were even a few more years to comply with the AD, which is very suspicious considering how many 747s were in the air.

For me, I just happened to be watching TV when President Clinton came on the air, interrupted normal programming as I recall, to inform the country that a 747 had crashed.  I found it very odd that the POTUS would come on TV, live, to announce an airliner crash.  No POTUS had done that before, and none since.  A sure sign that something highly irregular had happened, and most suggestive of government coverup.


#6    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:10 PM

View PostKowalski, on 23 May 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

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



Taken from http://en.wikipedia....native_theories


What are ya'lls thoughts on this?

I have to agree that the explosion of TWA FLT 800 was from a problem in the fuel tank. As an airframe technician, I have long been aware of fuel tank explosions and other problems associated with fuel tanks.

Recently, I posted a photo of a C-141, tail number 0253, which was  burning on the flightline at Travis AFB, where I was a witness.  A friend of mine, an Air Reserve Technician (ART), was the crew chief on that aircraft when it blew up. When we later met, he conveyed to me what happened just before the explosion. I was standing nearby when this photo was taken and another C-141 (not shown) was parked nearby and slightly damaged by the fire.


Posted Image


The C-141 was scheduled for a training flight that evening, but experienced a problem with a boost pump in the right wing. Maintenance personnel were called to replace the boost pump and in doing so, they drained the fuel tank to a level below an area of prolonged electrical arcing that exposed the problem area to fumes from the fuel. The breaker for the boost pump was pulled during replacement of the boost pump, and when pushed in for the test, the electrical arcing began in the presence of fuel fumes and that resulted in the explosion and fire you see in the photo. No one was killed and my friend was one of the last to leave the aircraft during the incident. Another case involving a similar incident, which also occurred at Travis, involved an Airlift International, DC-8. One person was killed in that incident. I saw the aftermath of that incident the next day.

In the case of TWA, FLT 800, witnesses said that they saw a bright object climbing into the sky, which would have been accurate because when TWA 800 exploded, the front portion of the B-747 was blown off which affected the center-of-gravity and sent the remaining  airframe of the B-747 into a steep climb because of that serious tail-heavy condition, which was similar to a recent incident involving a B-747 over Afghanistan where an B-747 climbed at a very steep angle until it stalled and crashed.

From a distance at night, TWA 800 would have looked like a climbing rocket. An examination of radar data shows targets in the sky but none that came near TWA 800, and a should-launch missile was not capable of catching the B-747 at that altitude. It is very difficult for such a small missile to down a B-747, or any large aircraft. For an example, an Airbus A300 transport was struck by a missile over Iraq. One of our C-5s, which was based at Travis AFB, was struck at engine #4 by a surface-to-air  missile over Iraq. The aircraft managed to return to the airfield for a safe landing.


Posted Image

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.

This video reviews the surface-to-air missile strike on the Airbus A300 over Iraq.




And, one of our C-17s was struck by a missile over Iraq.

Quote

C-17 Struck by Surface-to-Air Missile

On 10 December 2003, a U.S. Air Force C-17 (AF Serial No. 98-0057) was hit by a surface-to-air missile after take-off from Baghdad, Iraq. One engine was disabled and the aircraft returned for a safe landing. The aircraft was repaired and returned to service

http://aviation-safe...p?id=20031209-0

An examination of radar data found no evidence of missiles or other aircraft intersecting TWA 800.

Quote


With that evidence in hand, we can rule out missiles and concluded that the flaming wreckage of TWA 800 as it was climbing into the sky after its forward fuselage dislodged from the rest of the aircraft was what witnesses saw, not a missile. In addition:

Quote


Fuel/air Explosion in the Center Wing Fuel Tank

In order to evaluate the sequence of structural breakup of the airplane, the NTSB formed the Sequencing Group, which examined individual pieces of the recovered structure, two-dimensional reconstructions or layouts of sections of the airplane, and various-sized three-dimensional reconstructions of portions of the airplane. In addition, the locations of pieces of wreckage at the time of recovery and differences in fire effects on pieces that are normally adjacent to each other were evaluated. The Sequencing Group concluded that the first event in the breakup sequence was a fracture in the wing center section of the aircraft, caused by an "overpressure event" in the center wing fuel tank (CWT). An overpressure event was defined as a rapid increase in pressure resulting in failure of the structure of the CWT.

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,[citation needed] 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

Computer modeling and scale model testing were used to predict and demonstrate how an explosion would progress in a 747 CWT. During this time, quenching was identified as an issue, where the explosion would extinguish itself as it passed through the complex structure of the CWT. Because the research data regarding quenching was limited, a complete understanding of quenching behavior was not possible, and the issue of quenching remained unresolved.

In order to better determine whether a fuel/air vapor explosion in the CWT would generate sufficient pressure to break apart the fuel tank and lead to the destruction of the airplane, tests were conducted in July and August 1997, using a retired Air France 747 at Bruntingthorpe Airfield, England. These tests simulated a fuel/air explosion in the CWT by igniting a propane/air mixture; this resulted in the failure of the tank structure due to overpressure. While the NTSB acknowledged that the test conditions at Bruntingthorpe were not fully comparable to the conditions that existed on TWA 800 at the time of the accident, previous fuel explosions in the CWTs of commercial airliners such as Avianca Flight 203 and Philippine Airlines Flight 143 confirmed that a CWT explosion could break apart the fuel tank and lead to the destruction of an airplane.

Ultimately, based on "the accident airplane's breakup sequence; wreckage damage characteristics; scientific tests and research on fuels, fuel tank explosions, and the conditions in the CWT at the time of the accident; and analysis of witness information," the NTSB concluded that "the TWA flight 800 in-flight breakup was initiated by a fuel/air explosion in the CWT.

http://www.ntsb.gov/...000/AAR0003.pdf

To further add, pilots should check the Notices to Airmen (NOTAMS) before each trip.

http://www.faa.gov/a...ations/notices/

http://www.faa.gov/a.../2013-05-02.pdf

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 May 2013 - 09:19 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#7    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,567 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 25 May 2013 - 01:49 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 May 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

Good topic, and you've covered most of the bases, but missed the comments of USAF General Benton Partin.  Sorry for no link, but he does have a website, or used to.  He is the same fellow who inspected the Murrah Building and pleaded with Congress to leave the building stand so that a proper investigation could be conducted.

Your point that the Airworthiness Directive against 747s came 8 years later is right on.  As I recall, there were even a few more years to comply with the AD, which is very suspicious considering how many 747s were in the air.

For me, I just happened to be watching TV when President Clinton came on the air, interrupted normal programming as I recall, to inform the country that a 747 had crashed.  I found it very odd that the POTUS would come on TV, live, to announce an airliner crash.  No POTUS had done that before, and none since.  A sure sign that something highly irregular had happened, and most suggestive of government coverup.

Air Force General?  But I thought we weren't supposed to trust the gummit?

As for why President Clinton might announce an airliner crash - you do recall what was about to kick off two days after the crash, right?  To say the eyes of the world were on the United States would be an understatement.


#8    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,344 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 25 May 2013 - 02:05 PM

Rafterman

Call me a bit idealistic, but I would like to believe that there are a few good men in government.  Actually, I know this to be true, but the reality is that their numbers are VERY few.

For example, Russ Feingold was the only senator to vote against the patriot act.  1% of the senate was good, on that day.

Partin spent his career in the USAF in the field of explosives.  After a preliminary inspection at Murrah, he found evidence of explosives that were not consistent with the official story of the truck bomb.  He went on record with a letter to Trent Lott, but his advice was rejected, for obvious reasons.

HE acted in accordance with his conscience and his oath of office.  Just one guy, but he did the right thing.

If you take the time to read his observations regarding TWA800 with an open mind (that's the tough part) you will be forced to rethink your view of that incident.  And if what he says is true and accurate, it perfectly explains why the POTUS had to interrupt normal programming to announce an airliner crash.  Further, it very much corroborates those 154 witnesses who observed a missle launch.

Without curiosity and an open mind, well, just do what Trent Lott did and pretend Partin doesn't know WTF he's talking about.


#9    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 25 May 2013 - 02:26 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 25 May 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

If you take the time to read his observations regarding TWA800 with an open mind (that's the tough part) you will be forced to rethink your view of that incident.

Why? Problems with fuel tank explosions are nothing new in commercial and military aviation. What steps were taken by the Boeing Aircraft Company after the TWA 800 tragedy?

Quote


The TWA 800 Investigation

The NTSB investigation ended with the adoption of its final report on August 23, 2000. In it the Board determined that the probable cause of the TWA 800 accident was:

[An] explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT), resulting from ignition of the inflammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system.

In addition to the probable cause, the NTSB found the following contributing factors to the accident: The design and certification concept that fuel tank explosions could be prevented solely by precluding all ignition sources

The certification of the Boeing 747 with heat sources located beneath the CWT with no means to reduce the heat transferred into the CWT or to render the fuel tank vapor non-combustible.
During the course of its investigation, and in its final report, the NTSB issued fifteen safety recommendations, mostly covering fuel tank and wiring-related issues.

Among the recommendations was that significant consideration should be given to the development of modifications such as nitrogen-inerting systems for new airplane designs and, where feasible, for existing airplanes.

http://www.ntsb.gov/...000/AAR0003.pdf


Edited by skyeagle409, 25 May 2013 - 02:27 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#10    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 25 May 2013 - 02:54 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 25 May 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Why? Problems with fuel tank explosions are nothing new in commercial and military aviation. What steps were taken by the Boeing Aircraft Company after the TWA 800 tragedy?



Nothing was done until 2004. That's what I don't get. I mean if it was caused by a fuel tank explosion, why didn't they do something about fuel tanks earlier?


#11    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 25 May 2013 - 03:31 PM

View PostKowalski, on 25 May 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

Nothing was done until 2004. That's what I don't get. I mean if it was caused by a fuel tank explosion, why didn't they do something about fuel tanks earlier?


Investigations, engineering, data collection, testing and modificatons can take a long time. but much work has been done and an investigation found a number of faults with scavenger pumps.

The Boeing Letter B-B600-16593 to the NTSB, dated January 20, 1999, described in detail the evaluations conducted on the safety features of the scavenge system, including inspection of the recovered hardware and a thorough failure analysis of the scavenge pump electrical system. In addition the FAA issued requirements for adding to commercial jets, fuel tank inerting systems. These systems replace potentially explosive fumes in fuel tanks with "nitrogen enriched air."

In 2002, the Federal Aviation Administration sent warnings to the airlines to have their aircraft fly with extra fuel to prevent fuel pumps from overheating and possibly causing an explosion. Apparently, there was a problem with the pumps, made by Hydro-Aire Inc. Among the aircraft affected by the FAA warnings were B-737s, B-757s and the B-747

I have gone into fuel tanks of the C-5 and C-141 aircraft on a number of occasions and extremed preparations and safety precautions were undertaken by fuel systems personnel before I was allowed to enter the tanks. Problems with fuel tank pumps and explosions are nothing new in the world of aviation.

Edited by skyeagle409, 25 May 2013 - 03:33 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#12    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,344 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 25 May 2013 - 06:49 PM

View PostKowalski, on 25 May 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

Nothing was done until 2004. That's what I don't get. I mean if it was caused by a fuel tank explosion, why didn't they do something about fuel tanks earlier?

Because they (FAA) all knew they were 'going through the motions' to generate the paperwork.  That is, they all knew they were somehow participating in a bull**** story.  Grin, and bear it.

That's my guess anyway. :gun:


#13    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 25 May 2013 - 07:01 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 25 May 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Because they (FAA) all knew they were 'going through the motions' to generate the paperwork.  That is, they all knew they were somehow participating in a bull**** story.  Grin, and bear it.

That's my guess anyway.

If you knew anything about the FAA, you would have known that the FAA is not known for its speed in getting things done.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#14    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,174 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 25 May 2013 - 07:59 PM

On top of that Skyeagle THe facts are just that,FACTS ! No missile no tracks,no radar reports,No confirmed Eyewitnesses ! NADA ! ZIP ! Itrs all a C.T `s Dream ! :tu:

This is a Work in Progress!

#15    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,567 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 25 May 2013 - 08:58 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 25 May 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

Rafterman

Call me a bit idealistic, but I would like to believe that there are a few good men in government.  Actually, I know this to be true, but the reality is that their numbers are VERY few.

For example, Russ Feingold was the only senator to vote against the patriot act.  1% of the senate was good, on that day.

Partin spent his career in the USAF in the field of explosives.  After a preliminary inspection at Murrah, he found evidence of explosives that were not consistent with the official story of the truck bomb.  He went on record with a letter to Trent Lott, but his advice was rejected, for obvious reasons.

HE acted in accordance with his conscience and his oath of office.  Just one guy, but he did the right thing.

If you take the time to read his observations regarding TWA800 with an open mind (that's the tough part) you will be forced to rethink your view of that incident.  And if what he says is true and accurate, it perfectly explains why the POTUS had to interrupt normal programming to announce an airliner crash.  Further, it very much corroborates those 154 witnesses who observed a missle launch.

Without curiosity and an open mind, well, just do what Trent Lott did and pretend Partin doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

Given that all of Gen. Partin's "theories" thoroughly discredited, why do you think his analysis of TWA 800 has any merit at all?  His theory is that of a missile strike even though there is no evidence at all that a missile was fired or hit the plane.  There was no warship in the area that could have fired it.  There was no missile missing from the inventory.  There was no missile.

Here's what the Southern Poverty Law Center says about Gen. Partin - a useful idiot if you ask me:

The 'Two-Bomb' General
Benton Partin, 74

Patriot ideologues have long scoffed at the work of scholars and specialists, but like conspiracy theorists everywhere, they love a credentialed expert who is on their side. Such was the case with retired Brig. Gen. Benton Partin, a 31-year Air Force veteran who provided Patriots with their core theory about the Oklahoma bombing.
In press conferences, at Patriot gatherings and in letters to politicians, Partin expounded on his idea that the truck bomb driven by Timothy McVeigh "could not possibly" have destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building by itself. Claiming long experience in weapons design, Partin — who retired in 1979 — said photographs of the damage convinced him there were other bombs inside the building.
Although Partin didn't say so, other Patriots expanded on this theory to accuse the government of bombing its own building to create an excuse for passing draconian anti-terrorism legislation.
Ultimately, Partin became a proponent of a whole pantheon of conspiracy theories. He claimed that federal agents used explosives to breach the Davidian compound in Waco — a charge for which there is no evidence.
He produced a hyper-conspiratorial video entitled, "Globalism: The Program." And, never one to pass up a possible plot, he said TWA Flight 800 was hit by a surface-to-air missile. Partin did finally present his Oklahoma bomb theory to a grand jury, which roundly rejected the concept.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users