# TWA 800 - 20 Years Ago

### Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

#### GregGleason

##### Well-Known Member
Tomorrow, July 17, 2016, will mark the 20th anniversary of TWA 800 disaster. I remember at the time that there were so many eyewitness (literally hundreds) that saw the Paris-bound Boeing 747 come down in a flaming trail of debris into the Atlantic Ocean, a few minutes after its departure from JFK airport. Many of the witnesses saw streaks of light that intercepted the aircraft. The National Transportation Safety Board chose to discount and ignore all, not some, but all of the eyewitness testimony. At the conclusion of the government investigation, there was animation provided by the CIA (the CIA!) that sought to "explain" what the eyewitnesses saw.

I'm not a conspiracy guy, but why did the FBI and the NTSB discount eyewitness testimony (including pilots who were in the air at the time), but that same eyewitness testimony is allowed in courts of law in our own judicial system? I wonder if any of the many witnesses flew HPR and could compare what they know a rocket trail looks like vs what occurred on July 17, 1996.

There are only a few missiles in the world that can do that. Unfortunately, most of them are made in the USA.

Regardless, it was a heartache for so many families whose lives were ripped apart by the event.

There is a documentary on the subject, which was available on Amazon:

Greg

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Igotnothing

##### Well-Known Member
One of the pilots in the air nearby was a Vietnam-era chopper pilot flying that day with the NG. He really, really knew what a missile going up looks like. At least one serious aviation magazine interviewed him and posted his witness. He apparently got the "shut up" memo later.

#### mach7

##### Well-Known Member
It was the fuel ullage in the center tank and a spark caused by old wiring on one of the fuel pumps.
The tank blew up when the engineer turned on the center tank pumps to be sure they were empty.

It was not a missile or a bomb.

I have read the accident report and was briefed on the accident. I fly Boeing's for a living. Our procedures
were changed because of this accident.

The mechanics and sequence of events are very well know.
The metal around the tank was petaled out.

We really did land on the moon

#### GregGleason

##### Well-Known Member
I am aware of the "official" report and the findings. I am aware of what Boeing did as a result. I believe that there were many honorable people involved.

But there were investigators that were frozen out of the investigation and there is testimony from some of the investigators that some of the evidence was changed (initially tagged found in one location, then changed to another).

What bothers me is all of the reports (hundreds) that saw missiles converge on the aircraft. Even pilots. Why was there no attempt to "explain" what the many eyewitnesses saw? There was nothing in the eyewitness testimony that fits with the center fuel tank explosion.

About the center fuel tank, IIRC there is an assertion that the volts/amperage flowing into the tank is negligible and couldn't ignite anything in the Jet A environment. As far as I know, there was no corroborating test done on a matching fuel tank or analog to replicate the explosion.

Why was the CIA involved? That in itself should set off some bells. How many other NHTSA accidents had the CIA involved? My guess is zero.

I'm not a pilot or an engineer, but I'm old enough to know that something about this investigation doesn't smell right.

Greg

#### mach7

##### Well-Known Member
Believe what you want.

There was plenty of current to explode the highly volatile fuel mixture. Made so by the plane sitting with a very small amount of fuel in the tank on a very hot day.

There ware MANY tests done by Boeing and the government. I have seen the films of some of them.

Many 747's were affected. I think all -100s,-200s, and -300s. They were all fixed or taken out of service after this. MANY ADs were issued.
The wiring used was not up to modern specs. They had to change a lot of the system.

I have no Idea why the CIA does many things. Probably because it was thought to be terrorism at first, them some people claimed it was a missile.

I have had some little experience with safety investigations. One thing you learn real quick is how inconsistent and almost useless eyewitness accounts are.
people are not expecting to see an accident, and often have expectation bias and adjust what they see. It's always a traumatic event and people many times see what they want to see.

I fly a Boeing for a living. 15 days a month or more. I trust the aircraft. But every aircraft has issues. Boeing's have had fuel tank issues since the 707 days.

I am a pilot and an engineer. I am very comfortable with the cause of the accident.

Occam's razor rules.

#### GregGleason

##### Well-Known Member
Thank you for giving me the information on the fuel tank tests that you saw.

You are a pilot, so you wouldn't believe the testimony of the other aviators in the area that witnessed the event? I understand if you don't.

Greg

#### mach7

##### Well-Known Member
What did they see? what was the perspective? Did they see the initial smaller tank explosion or the final large main fuel explosion?

Remember it was at night in the busiest air corridor in the world. There were lights everywhere from other aircraft, ground lights, ships at sea.

If memory serves me, most of the "missile" tracks were proven to be burning fuel from the larger secondary explosion.
The 1st tank explosion was smaller than the final breakup. After the center tank exploded, the nose separated and fell. The remaining aircraft
then shot up. With the nose gone the remainder was very tail heavy. The remainder of the aircraft climbed very rapidly for a short time due to
momentum and started to disintegrate. the wings separated and the fuel there ignited causing what looked at some angles to be a near vertical
stream of flame. This is why some of the witnesses say they saw a missile track.
All of this is corroborated from radar track, both civil and military and wreckage pattern, flight data recorder, and forensics.

There was no warhead residue on any of the bodies or wreckage.

Look at the photos of the Malaysian aircraft shot down by a Russian missile the impact point is riddled with small holes. This is how a missile
brings down an aircraft. The warhead does not usually hit the aircraft. The shaped charge sends high velocity shrapnel into the aircraft to destroy
it. None of this was found on the wreckage of TWA 800.

Add to all that that the CVR recording shows the aircraft exploding almost immediately after the Flight engineer turned on the center tank pumps!

What I understand is the facts. ALL of the facts point to the center fuel explosion due to fuel vapors igniting from the fuel tank wiring.

Again Occam's razor.

Believe what you will, but the facts are the facts.

#### GregGleason

##### Well-Known Member
I understand your position and the official record.

Just a correction, the incident was 8:31 PM EDT so sunset was probably about 8:25 PM or so with 10 mile visibility. Therefore not exactly night, more dusk IMHO.

Have you heard the testimony of the aviators in the area who were witnesses? I understand if you haven't or do not want to. Just curious.

Greg

#### mach7

##### Well-Known Member
I'm going from memory, it was civil twilight then, not dark. It does not really change anything.

I have read the transcripts of all the eyewitness reports.

Obviously you want to believe it was a missile and None of the facts I can list will change your mind.

That's fine I guess.

Enjoy, I'm done here.

#### GregGleason

##### Well-Known Member

As an aside, I do think the 747 is one of the finest civil aircraft Boeing ever designed (with the possible exception of the 707). Certainly one of the best looking and IIRC one of the fastest with respect to cruise.

Greg

##### Roger Smith
To add to what Mark said, what people described as "a missile" didn't really look anything like a missile. They reported seeing a streak of light. A real missile would have appeared as a moving dot. It wouldn't leave behind a trail of light (as burning fuel would).

-- Roger

#### GregGleason

##### Well-Known Member
People described "Why is someone shooting off flares?" Except the flare kept going up and changed directions until it made contact.

Greg

#### bobkrech

##### Well-Known Member
Perhaps you have forgotten the plane was recovered and reassembled.......That's how they know what happened.

Also modern military anti-aircraft missiles do not leave a luminous plume or smoke trail...because if a military pilot can see a missile plume or smoke trail, they can and will take evasive action....

#### tmacklin

##### Well-Known Member
It was probably those damn dolphins again! They have a secret underwater missile base under the Atlantic. They're tired of us using them do deploy mines.

#### KidRockET

##### Epstein didn't kill himself
Having been lied to....

Repeatedly for my entire life...

I no longer believe "official story"...

Coming from any 3-letter .gov agency...

NOTHING

#### sopwith21

##### Member
I spent 3 years as an anchor on ABC's news desk and am in my 5th year at NBC. Before that I wrote for 3 newspapers and was news director over 3 other radio stations. I've been in the media since 1984, dealing wtih government agencies all the while. Believe what you want, but this is my first-hand experience with information from the mainstream media and the government:

1) EVERYTHING (this means "every &*$%# freaking literal word") uttered by a government agency representative is a lie. Always. Without fail. 2) The biggest reason to believe that a missile hit TWA 800 is because the government says that a missile did not hit TWA 800. 3) If you watch the 11 o'clock news tonight, you'll be dumber at 11:30 than you were at 11:00. 4) Turn off your TV. Forever. Smash it with a sledge hammer and throw it in the trash. Quick quiz for the government-propaganda challenged... May 2017, Manchester - Alleged bomber Salman Abedi was found dead, thank goodness he left his ID in his pocket. Dec 2016, Berling - Truck driver suspect is dead, ID conveniently found inside his truck. July 2016, Nice - Suspect shot dead by police at scene, but he was generous enough to leave his ID behind in the truck. Jan 2015, Paris - Said Kouachi killed by cops, but he had the foresight to leave his ID in the rental car. Nov 2015, Paris - Both conveniently deceased suspected bombers were kind enough to leave their passports, which somehow did not blow up with the rest of them. 9/11, New York - The twin towers are pulverized to powder, yet the passports of the recently deceased suspects are found magically intact. For crying out loud. Don't these people know any new tricks? It shows you just what they think of our intelligence that they offer us this kind of explanation. They don't even give us the dignity of good, high quality lies. If you see pattern here, you are perhaps still in control of your faculties. If not, then turn your TV back on and return to your vegetative state. #### Steve Shannon ##### Well-Known Member TRF Supporter I spent 3 years as an anchor on ABC's news desk and am in my 5th year at NBC. Before that I wrote for 3 newspapers and was news director over 3 other radio stations. I've been in the media since 1984, dealing wtih government agencies all the while. Believe what you want, but this is my first-hand experience with information from the mainstream media and the government: 1) EVERYTHING (this means "every &*$%# freaking literal word") uttered by a government agency representative is a lie. Always. Without fail.
2) The biggest reason to believe that a missile hit TWA 800 is because the government says that a missile did not hit TWA 800.
3) If you watch the 11 o'clock news tonight, you'll be dumber at 11:30 than you were at 11:00.
4) Turn off your TV. Forever. Smash it with a sledge hammer and throw it in the trash.

Quick quiz for the government-propaganda challenged...

May 2017, Manchester - Alleged bomber Salman Abedi was found dead, thank goodness he left his ID in his pocket.
Dec 2016, Berling - Truck driver suspect is dead, ID conveniently found inside his truck.
July 2016, Nice - Suspect shot dead by police at scene, but he was generous enough to leave his ID behind in the truck.
Jan 2015, Paris - Said Kouachi killed by cops, but he had the foresight to leave his ID in the rental car.
Nov 2015, Paris - Both conveniently deceased suspected bombers were kind enough to leave their passports, which somehow did not blow up with the rest of them.
9/11, New York - The twin towers are pulverized to powder, yet the passports of the recently deceased suspects are found magically intact.

For crying out loud. Don't these people know any new tricks? It shows you just what they think of our intelligence that they offer us this kind of explanation. They don't even give us the dignity of good, high quality lies.

If you see pattern here, you are perhaps still in control of your faculties. If not, then turn your TV back on and return to your vegetative state.
It's vital to terrorists' causes that they be identified and their motives known. Thus they carry ID. It's in the manual.

#### markkoelsch

##### Well-Known Member
I spent 3 years as an anchor on ABC's news desk and am in my 5th year at NBC. Before that I wrote for 3 newspapers and was news director over 3 other radio stations. I've been in the media since 1984, dealing wtih government agencies all the while. Believe what you want, but this is my first-hand experience with information from the mainstream media and the government:

1) EVERYTHING (this means "every &*\$%# freaking literal word") uttered by a government agency representative is a lie. Always. Without fail.
2) The biggest reason to believe that a missile hit TWA 800 is because the government says that a missile did not hit TWA 800.
3) If you watch the 11 o'clock news tonight, you'll be dumber at 11:30 than you were at 11:00.
4) Turn off your TV. Forever. Smash it with a sledge hammer and throw it in the trash.

Quick quiz for the government-propaganda challenged...

May 2017, Manchester - Alleged bomber Salman Abedi was found dead, thank goodness he left his ID in his pocket.
Dec 2016, Berling - Truck driver suspect is dead, ID conveniently found inside his truck.
July 2016, Nice - Suspect shot dead by police at scene, but he was generous enough to leave his ID behind in the truck.
Jan 2015, Paris - Said Kouachi killed by cops, but he had the foresight to leave his ID in the rental car.
Nov 2015, Paris - Both conveniently deceased suspected bombers were kind enough to leave their passports, which somehow did not blow up with the rest of them.
9/11, New York - The twin towers are pulverized to powder, yet the passports of the recently deceased suspects are found magically intact.

For crying out loud. Don't these people know any new tricks? It shows you just what they think of our intelligence that they offer us this kind of explanation. They don't even give us the dignity of good, high quality lies.

If you see pattern here, you are perhaps still in control of your faculties. If not, then turn your TV back on and return to your vegetative state.
An anchor? Who are you, and might we have seen you on the air?

I doubt everything is a lie- that would indicate a level of forethought that the government does not appear capable of. Some certainly is- terrorists carrying ID is not likely one of them.

This very religous/political group has been trying to take over western world for about a thousand years- if you do not know that then you do not know history.

#### farsidius

##### semper discens
Argh. I don't even know where to start with this discussion. People share what they see. I have no doubt that eye-witnesses believe they saw missiles fly into the plane. That doesn't mean it happened. People's memories are so easily malleable that a simple suggestion of an event or occurrence will change the mind's interpretation of what happened to match the narrative that they want to believe or think is correct. This happens so much that eye-witness accounts in court are almost laughable without additional support such as pictures or video. A classic example of this problem is the 2001 study of the Disneyland vacationers that were shown photos of various sites and attractions in the park, some of which included ads and pictures of Bugs Bunny in Disneyland. When asked after viewing the photos if they saw Bugs Bunny during their visit, a third of the participants claimed they had vivid memories of meeting him, even shaking his hand and having pictures taken with him. They could describe in detail their encounter. We know that Bugs isn't part of the Disney experience and belongs to Warner Bros. They never saw him, but now they have the memory that they did. And this memory change occurred in less than 10 minutes, this wasn't some long, drawn out coercive beat-down.

These witnesses to the plane explosion probably saw some streaks of light, maybe as some have suggested here they were from the initial explosion. Whether through suggestion or to fit a preconceived idea of events, their minds created the missile narrative and that's what they really think they saw - even though all the physical evidence from the debris reconstruction proves otherwise. If there were photos or videos of the event, this would be easy to debate. There were also a lot of eye-witnesses that saw the plane explosion that didn't see missiles. Have they been brain-washed, do we just discount them as having missed them? Do we just discount all the physical evidence and concentrate only on the subjective evidence?

I have no doubt that I have memories that are inaccurate due to my own preconceptions throughout life. Do I know which one's they are? Nope!

Last edited:

#### Marc_G

##### Well-Known Member
It's a troll, ignore it. New member, exactly one post, and it's a conspiracy rant. Nothing to see here folks.

Now look into this penlight until it flashes...