Flight 800

[abpt1]

http://www.wfmz.com/news/was-twa-flight-800-crash-accidental/-/121458/20625818/-/12jdrbg/-/index.html

I am not big on all these conspiracy's people come up with in fact every time I hear some one say 911 was a inside job I want to smack them. But I do believe this was no accident. If you look at the flight path from the black box the aircraft had to loose a significant amount of mass to have such a dramatic altitude climb before its plummet. Also the new was on top of the crash and a channel was in NJ interviewing people on the shore moments after the crash. These people said they seen a flicker of light before the large flash. They were live and its was only shown once. That clip was not seen again I watched and watch the news I keep waiting for them to replay it a thousand times, like they always do with eye witnesses it was never reaired not once.

[Altarboy]

There is so much weird and iffy stuff going on in our country I don't know what to believe anymore. Really. I don't trust my government at all.And I now believe most of thr bad stuff people accuse them of.

[Richard Simmons]

When I read things like "official theory" I tend to question the statement. Is an "official theory" somehow more plausible than a unofficial theory? Could this just be hype for the upcoming "unreleased documentary"?

If someone shot down the plane why not claim credit for it? Isn't that what an act of terrorism is all about, instilling terror? Why haven't we seen a rash of other aircraft being shot down?

Could it have been an electrical fire that caused it? Sure, that latest jet from Boeing has had several problems with the new lithium ion batteries that resulted in fires. An electrical short is that hard to believe.

Anything is possible but is everything plausible?

[imanaknut]

Being in the aircraft business as I have, when any plane goes down, the NTSB report on why it might have happened always ends with: The probable cause...

It is always a probable cause as very rarely is the reason an aircraft that should be very well maintained goes down, and with one coming apart in the air as TWA 800 did being so rare, putting together a true reason isn't easy. Of course sometimes the real reason is known, and for reasons that we mere mortals can't know, they never tell the true reason.

There have been several mid-air breakups where the NTSB report read the worst it could: The probable cause of this accident is unknown. These days even saying that, whether true or not would lead to many theories that if told over and over like a true lie, soon become fact.

In the case of TWA 800, there were many witnesses that never testified, as in none if I am not mistaken.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

There were many eyewitnesses that reported a smoke trail from the water to the plane. Do I believe my gov't? You'd have to be an idiot to believe them anymore.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

When I read things like "official theory" I tend to question the statement. Is an "official theory" somehow more plausible than a unofficial theory? Could this just be hype for the upcoming "unreleased documentary"?

If someone shot down the plane why not claim credit for it? Isn't that what an act of terrorism is all about, instilling terror? Why haven't we seen a rash of other aircraft being shot down?

Could it have been an electrical fire that caused it? Sure, that latest jet from Boeing has had several problems with the new lithium ion batteries that resulted in fires. An electrical short is that hard to believe.

Anything is possible but is everything plausible? Perhaps that was the only stinger they had still functioning that we gave them? Perhaps after that port security around airports become better?

[5.56NATO]

Ever looked into who and what was on that plane?

[abpt1]

No and for the record both my parents are/were flight instructors we actually owned a flight school and a small airline company also my father flew commercially and retired from a larger airline. I have been flying my whole life and know a little bit about the physics of flight . Not that any of that makes a difference just a bit of my background .So know when something like this happened why I was attentive to news story's of this nature and I remember this vividly so don't tell me there were no witnesses.

[imanaknut]

I also wondered, if it was "just an airliner crash" then why did the FBI kick out NTSB investigators who wanted to inspect the wreckage?

Just another thing to write off during the clinton administration. Yes, who was on the plane that the clintons didn't like?

[Richard Simmons]

Perhaps that was the only stinger they had still functioning that we gave them? Perhaps after that port security around airports become better?

Perhaps but why did no one claim responsibility for it? Are Stingers the only shoulder fired surface to air missile available? As I said, it's possible but is it plausible? A stinger has a 3 mile range. Pretty big area to secure around every airport. All you'd have to do is sit in a van or box truck until the aircraft took off, step out and fire. Virtually impossible to prevent something like that from happening.

I just checked and there are 20 different models, NOT made by the U.S. that terrorists could get ahold of including those made in Iran, china and Pakistan. Again not saying it could not have been shot down, just that is doesn't seem like the most likely theory.

[abpt1]

If it was a gas tank failure the aircraft would have lost a wing at the very lest and that does not = LIFT.








Maybe domestic issue like Oklahoma/ft hood. RS

[Krupski]

There were many eyewitnesses that reported a smoke trail from the water to the plane. Do I believe my gov't? You'd have to be an idiot to believe them anymore.

That makes you a "conspiracy theorist loon" or "kook".

[Krupski]

If it was a gas tank failure the aircraft would have lost a wing at the very lest and that does not = LIFT.

Maybe domestic issue like Oklahoma/ft hood. RS

The fuel tank is not a structural component of an aircraft. A tank may leak or rupture (not likely because they are self-sealing), but that would never cause a wing failure (like a spar failure that causes the wing to depart from the aircraft).

An engine fire that burned long enough might weaken the steel and aluminum enough for a failure to occur, but engines have fire extinguishers and fuel shutoffs. A flamed out engine would either be restarted or shut down, it would not be allowed to continue to burn.

AKNut's idea is probably the closest to reality.... Clinton had someone whacked.

[El Laton Caliente]

I also wondered, if it was "just an airliner crash" then why did the FBI kick out NTSB investigators who wanted to inspect the wreckage?

Just another thing to write off during the clinton administration. Yes, who was on the plane that the clintons didn't like?

The Klinton administration swept several terrorist events under the rug because of not wanting to admit they were terrorist strikes and having to go to war over them. All the while going after "domestic terrorists"; read internal enemies list (Obama light anyone or just sneakier?). The World Trade Center Bombing, two or more major attacks on embassies, the Cole, the bar in (was it Germany?) and how many more we didn't hear about...

[imanaknut]

If it was a gas tank failure the aircraft would have lost a wing at the very lest and that does not = LIFT.



Maybe domestic issue like Oklahoma/ft hood. RS

The fuel tank in question is center-mounted which means it is in the fuselage. Regardless as to how or why the center mounted fuel tank exploded, it's location is right at a major assembly line of the 747 fuselage, and with the nose of the 747 actually designed to provide added lift to the aircraft, it is not surprising that the forward fuselage separated at the location it did.

[5.56NATO]

Say it was a manpad that took it down. Don't most ada missiles pop a ring of shrapnel around the missile to ensure a kill? A intercept from the rear near an inboard engine might just weaken all that aluminum so as to cleav an airliner in front and back sections.