Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Scott G

TWA 800 Shot Down by a Military Missile?

308 posts in this topic

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

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.

search.map.gif

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 executives privately concluded that TWA 800 had been shot down..

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

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

The article goes on, looks pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

search.map.gif

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 executives privately 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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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?

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 seats and 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 -.-

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 seats and 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

650253_safety_first.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

****

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Prove it.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was with the Coast Guard for the recovery and aftermath. Outside of some horrid communication, a civilian posing as a Special Forces flight controller and jurisdiction squabbles (that almost ended in arrests), there wasn't really any problems - and there were no talks in the Incident Command Post about any Naval missile or anything like that. As the Federal On-Scene Coordinator's Representative for the pollution involved, I was there for ALL of the briefings for the entire time the ICS system was set up.

This story is bogus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was with the Coast Guard for the recovery and aftermath. Outside of some horrid communication, a civilian posing as a Special Forces flight controller and jurisdiction squabbles (that almost ended in arrests), there wasn't really any problems - and there were no talks in the Incident Command Post about any Naval missile or anything like that. As the Federal On-Scene Coordinator's Representative for the pollution involved, I was there for ALL of the briefings for the entire time the ICS system was set up.

This story is bogus.

A civilian posing as a Special Forces flight controller. He get into any trouble for that? You ever wonder if perhaps he was working for a U.S. intelligence agency? CIA, NSA, something like that? Have -you- read Captain Russell's affidavit? There was also Pierre Salinger's statements as well.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prove it.

Actually, its your job, or the job of the one putting forward the "alternate explanation" to prove that there WAS a US warship in the area. It a typical CT tactic to present a theory that has no verifyable facts (i.e. the name of the alleged ship that is so conveniently missing) and then say "Prove me / it / us wrong".

Unfortunately, the burden of proof doesn't work that way.

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?

Taken from the last paragraph of the previously linked Skeptiod page:

Of course, this doesn't change the mind of a die-hard conspiracy theorist, because this government-produced paper is simply part of the conspiracy. In fact, they consider the report's very existence as further evidence of the conspiracy. When you hear a conspiracy theory that provides no testable evidence of its own, but relies only on anecdotal testimonies, extrapolations of possible motivations, and non-evidenced claims of implausible coverups, you have every good reason to be skeptical.

So what if Russell filed an affidavit. So what of he "faced media scorn". All he's done is present an alternate theory that has no proof, from some unnamed source, about some alleged mystery US warship that allegedly fired some kind of missile.

Lots of allegation.

Zero proof.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Prove it.

Actually, its your job, or the job of the one putting forward the "alternate explanation" to prove that there WAS a US warship in the area.

Do you know anything about logic? To be valid, -any- assertion must be proven, not just ones that disagree with some official story. He says there were no Navy warships in the area? Let him prove it. Otherwise, it's possible that the Navy was lying and there was. That's the way reality works.

I took a look at that "analysis". It doesn't even -mention- Captain Richard Russell's email, not to mention his affidavit.

Taken from the last paragraph of the previously linked Skeptiod page:

Alright, it mentions there was some "report". No link to the actual contents of that report, never mind Russell's affidavit. Neither is there any mention of Salinger. In summation, it's a shoddy piece of work.

So what if Russell filed an affidavit. So what of he "faced media scorn".

You can say that; it's not -your- life that was turned upside down. Have -you- read Russell's affidavit? Have you read anything on what Salinger has had to say?

All [Russell has] done is present an alternate theory that has no proof, from some unnamed source, about some alleged mystery US warship that allegedly fired some kind of missile.

Lots of allegation.

Zero proof.

You didn't read it did you? Why am I even bothering with you people? You don't want to learn the truth. You just want to say "no proof" and move along. Go ahead then, no one's stopping you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know anything about logic? To be valid, -any- assertion must be proven, not just ones that disagree with some official story. He says there were no Navy warships in the area? Let him prove it. Otherwise, it's possible that the Navy was lying and there was. That's the way reality works.

The way the Burden of Proof works, since you are obviously unfamiliar with it despite having it explained to you before (if memory serves) is that the one making the extraordinary claim against the accepted fact is the one required to prove their point.

Accepted fact (whether YOU accept it or not is irrelevant) is that TWA 800 suffered a catastrophic explosion in its Center Wing Fuel Tank. There was no evidence found at all of a missile strike.

The ones who are proposing that something else happened - missile strike, on-board bomb, etc. - are the one's who are required to prove their point.

You can't just say "Well, this guy says that this happened, prove it wrong". Your insistence upon this tactic here and elsewhere shows me and probably others that is is you rather than me who is unfamiliar with logic.

Alright, it mentions there was some "report". No link to the actual contents of that report, never mind Russell's affidavit. Neither is there any mention of Salinger. In summation, it's a shoddy piece of work.

And yet the affidavit you rely on as your proof contains no name for the source of his information and no images of the supposed radar blip but is completely acceptable to you....?

You can say that; it's not -your- life that was turned upside down. Have -you- read Russell's affidavit? Have you read anything on what Salinger has had to say?

And it was Russell's choice to put himself in that kind of position to have his life "turned upside down".

Yes, I have read Russell's affidavit, and it appears that Salinger simply relied upon Russell's email / story and decided it was true. His initial claim was that the information he got was from "French Intelligence agent" who had gotten the information from an "American secret service agent stationed in France".

I also find it interesting that there is a "Peter Salinger Syndrome" where one seemingly believes whatever found on the internet to be true...

You didn't read it did you? Why am I even bothering with you people? You don't want to learn the truth. You just want to say "no proof" and move along. Go ahead then, no one's stopping you.

As has probably also been suggested to you before, if you would rather post your theories and then not have anyone dispute them, or at least control what people post in reply to your theories, start up a blog.

If you post them on a public forum such as this, then you must expect people to call your opinions and theories into question, especially ones such as this that are heavy on allegation and supposition, but significantly lacking in any evidentiary proof.

If you don't like that, too bad... deal with it.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way the Burden of Proof works, since you are obviously unfamiliar with it despite having it explained to you before (if memory serves) is that the one making the extraordinary claim against the accepted fact is the one required to prove their point.

You seem to be suggesting that the Navy lying about the whereabouts of its ships is an extraordinary claim. That about right?

Accepted fact (whether YOU accept it or not is irrelevant)

An assertion isn't a fact. But you can certainly accept is as such.

is that TWA 800 suffered a catastrophic explosion in its Center Wing Fuel Tank. There was no evidence found at all of a missile strike.

According to the official sources, that is. There's a good saying on that actually:

"They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth." I think I'll get to the rest tomorrow. I admit that I'm tired. But every now and then it just gets to me how so many people are so willing to believe official stories. I guess it's easier; perhaps that's the reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be suggesting that the Navy lying about the whereabouts of its ships is an extraordinary claim. That about right?

In part, but the wider perspective is that I am suggesting that the entire missile theory - of which the "Navy lying about the whereabouts of its ships" in this instance - is the extraordinary claim.

An assertion isn't a fact. But you can certainly accept is as such.

Perhaps, but the NTSB report that concludes that there is no evidence to support the idea that TWA 800 was brought down by a missile or an on-board bomb, is, in this case, the accepted fact that the claim you are supporting calls into question.

According to the official sources, that is. There's a good saying on that actually:

"They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth." I think I'll get to the rest tomorrow. I admit that I'm tired. But every now and then it just gets to me how so many people are so willing to believe official stories. I guess it's easier; perhaps that's the reason.

Here's another good saying:

"Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?" Yes, its a quote from Star Wars, but its relevant... admittedly (and objectively) to both sides of this debate, I suppose...

Perhaps its just easier for those who have a predisposition to question all "official sources" to fall in line with any alternate theory that supports their beliefs or further calls into question the official source, whether that alternate theory has any evidence to support it or even any basis in fact or reality.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't just say "Well, this guy says that this happened, prove it wrong". Your insistence upon this tactic here and elsewhere shows me and probably others that is is you rather than me who is unfamiliar with logic.

I never use that tactic. But when someone says that something happened; whether it's that 400 or so crewmen (their number, not mine) would have known if an AEGIS missile brought down TWA 800 or that there were no Navy warships in the area that might have fired this AEGIS missile, the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. Appeals to authority are just that; appeals to authority. Authority figures have lied to the public since time immemorial and yet somehow, people think that just because an authority such as the government or an outlet of the mass media, states that something is true, it must be true.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, it mentions there was some "report". No link to the actual contents of that report, never mind Russell's affidavit. Neither is there any mention of Salinger. In summation, it's a shoddy piece of work.

And yet the affidavit you rely on as your proof contains no name for the source of his information and no images of the supposed radar blip but is completely acceptable to you....?

It's true that it doesn't contain the name of the source. Given what happens to whistleblowers, I'm not surprised. Russell himself was already retired and so didn't need to worry about losing his job. However, you neglect to mention all the information it -does- have. Now that I see that you've read it, I'll bring it up later. I didn't want to before, if people wouldn't go to the link, was thinking they might just skip over it in a message; but since you've read it, it'll just be going over familiar ground.

You can say that; it's not -your- life that was turned upside down. Have -you- read Russell's affidavit? Have you read anything on what Salinger has had to say?

And it was Russell's choice to put himself in that kind of position to have his life "turned upside down".

Yes, but if someone is willing to do this, it suggests that they're doing it because they truly believe in what they're saying.

Yes, I have read Russell's affidavit,

Awesome. I have to ask though, did you read it before or after I brought it up?

and it appears that Salinger simply relied upon Russell's email / story and decided it was true.

I'm not sure if Salinger's contact relied solely on Russell's email, or even if Russell's email had anything to do with it, although I did see one claim that it was the basis of the French intelligence agent he spoke to.

His initial claim was that the information he got was from "French Intelligence agent" who had gotten the information from an "American secret service agent stationed in France".

I also find it interesting that there is a "Peter Salinger Syndrome" where one seemingly believes whatever found on the internet to be true...

Ever wonder who came up with this saying? There should be an Official Story Syndrome (OSS, perhaps), wherein people believe what ever the government and the mass media tells them to believe. Honestly, it's a lot easier to just believe in official stories; sure, they may change given time, but atleast there's only one of them -at- a time. Alternate stories aren't so clear cut; there is frequently more then one of them for any given event and it's up to the reader to try and figure out which one best fits the evidence. It's the difference between following a set religion and philosophy.

You didn't read it did you? Why am I even bothering with you people? You don't want to learn the truth. You just want to say "no proof" and move along. Go ahead then, no one's stopping you.

As has probably also been suggested to you before, if you would rather post your theories and then not have anyone dispute them, or at least control what people post in reply to your theories, start up a blog.

No, that's not what I want; I like hearing what others have to say on a subject. But I -do- want to know that people actually care enough about the subject at hand (as well as my credibility) to actually read a link (the affidavit) on the subject that I found to be important. I'm not sure if you read the affidavit before or after I mentioned it, but either way, to me this shows that you're actually interested enough in the subject (and my credibility) to do some research instead of simply dismissing any claims that go against the official story on the subject.

If you post them on a public forum such as this, then you must expect people to call your opinions and theories into question, especially ones such as this that are heavy on allegation and supposition, but significantly lacking in any evidentiary proof.

If you don't like that, too bad... deal with it.

Laugh :-). As I mention, I do like discussing things with people who really get into the subject. And even before I got upset, I felt that, given your track record, you were pretty good at that; in a way, it's why I got upset with you; if -you- wouldn't look at the affidavit, I had felt that maybe I really was wasting my time on this subject.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way the Burden of Proof works, since you are obviously unfamiliar with it despite having it explained to you before (if memory serves) is that the one making the extraordinary claim against the accepted fact is the one required to prove their point.

You seem to be suggesting that the Navy lying about the whereabouts of its ships is an extraordinary claim. That about right?

In part, but the wider perspective is that I am suggesting that the entire missile theory - of which the "Navy lying about the whereabouts of its ships" in this instance - is the extraordinary claim.

Alright, first back to your original statement; you keep on stating things like "accepted fact". But you haven't shown me anything in the official story regarding TWA 800 that's deserving of the name. This line of reasoning may work fine in places where the official story is the gospel, but we're not in such a forum. Given this fact, the official story is as suspect as any other story. You say that I have to "deal" with people questioning my theories, that's fine; but official stories can (and should) be questioned just as much, if not more. After all, the consequences of an official story being mistaken are much greater than if an alternate theory is mistaken.

An assertion isn't a fact. But you can certainly accept is as such.

Perhaps, but the NTSB report that concludes that there is no evidence to support the idea that TWA 800 was brought down by a missile or an on-board bomb, is, in this case, the accepted fact that the claim you are supporting calls into question.

It's an accepted assertion, atleast amoung those who trust the official story of events. A fact is something that has enough evidence to make it so; I have yet to see evidence that this is the case here.

According to the official sources, that is. There's a good saying on that actually:

"They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth." I think I'll get to the rest tomorrow. I admit that I'm tired. But every now and then it just gets to me how so many people are so willing to believe official stories. I guess it's easier; perhaps that's the reason.

Here's another good saying:

"Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?" Yes, its a quote from Star Wars, but it's relevant... admittedly (and objectively) to both sides of this debate, I suppose...

Exactly, laugh :-). I'm not against official stories per se; I'm sure that some of them are actually true. But I'm highly suspicious of stories that rely on one's trust in authority figures; that's just the type of thing that'll get a certain country into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya.. and I have a feeling that this won't be the end of the list, if history is any judge.

Perhaps its just easier for those who have a predisposition to question all "official sources" to fall in line with any alternate theory that supports their beliefs or further calls into question the official source, whether that alternate theory has any evidence to support it or even any basis in fact or reality.

Lol :-). I admit there are some conspiracy theorists who aren't all that interested in evidence. I'm not one of them, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.