Jump to content

TWA Flight 800, New Information


Borgoguy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just read this article.  When the original investigators are questioning the validity of final report (that the explosion occurred from an external source, not a spark to the fuel tank), we need to take notice.  Can't wait to see the documentary.

 

 

(CNN) -- An unreleased documentary on the 1996 TWA Flight 800 explosion offers "solid proof that there was an external detonation," its co-producer said Wednesday.

"Of course, everyone knows about the eyewitness statements, but we also have corroborating information from the radar data, and the radar data shows a(n) asymmetric explosion coming out of that plane -- something that didn't happen in the official theory," Tom Stalcup told CNN's "New Day."

A number of people have come forward, "all saying the same thing: that there was an external force -- not from the center wing tank, there's no evidence of that -- but there is evidence of an external explosion that brought down that plane," Stalcup said.

He cited "corroborating information from the radar data" and complained that "not one single eyewitness was allowed to testify -- that's unheard of."

130619082552-01-twa-0619-horizontal-gallPhotos: TWA Flight 800

 
130619100104-exp-ay-stalcup-documentary-"TWA Flight 800" doc presents new proof

The film's producers are submitting a petition -- signed by "many" former investigators -- asking for the National Transportation Safety Board to reopen its investigation, based on new evidence offered by the documentary, Stalcup said.

"The family members need to know what happened to their loved ones," he said.

Asked why such information might have been suppressed, he said, "That's a question that should be answered when this investigation gets reopened."

The NTSB ruled that the explosion was caused by an electrical short circuit, most likely originating in a fuel gauge line, which found its way into the center wing fuel tank, where it detonated fuel vapors and caused the B-747 to fall in pieces into the waters off Long Island.

Skeptics have long theorized that TWA Flight 800 was brought down by sinister forces.

They include Hank Hughes, who served as a senior accident investigator with the NTSB and helped reconstruct the aircraft. Others include Bob Young, a TWA investigator who participated in the investigation, and Jim Speer, an accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association.

"These investigators were not allowed to speak to the public or refute any comments made by their superiors and/or NTSB and FBI officials about their work at the time of the official investigation," a news release announcing the documentary said.

"They waited until after retirement to reveal how the official conclusion by the (NTSB) was falsified and lay out their case."

The documentary, "TWA Flight 800," will premiere July 17, the 17th anniversary of the crash.

Stalcup is co-founder of the Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization and has been a longtime and passionate critic of the official investigation.

Suspicions that criminals or terrorists were behind the TWA 800 explosion are not new. The FBI conducted a parallel investigation, but concluded that the incident was not a crime or terrorist attack.

The NTSB said Tuesday that it was aware of the pending release of the documentary, which will air on EPIX TV network, and of the producers' intent to file a petition to reopen the investigation.

"As required by NTSB regulation, a petition for reconsideration of board findings ... must be based on the discovery of NEW evidence or on a showing that the board's findings are erroneous," NTSB spokeswoman Kelly Nantel said in a statement. "At this point, the NTSB has not received a petition, however, we stand ready to review one, should it be filed."

Petitions are reviewed and a determination typically is made within 60 days, but the NTSB can take longer if necessary, she said. The safety board's investigation of TWA 800 lasted four years and "remains one of the NTSB's most extensive investigations," Nantel said.

Investigators "spent an enormous amount of time reviewing, documenting and analyzing facts and data, and held a five-day public hearing to gather additional facts before determining the probable cause of the accident," she said.

But her statement leaves open the possibility the case will be reopened.

"While the NTSB rarely re-investigates issues that have already been examined, our investigations are never closed, and we can review any new information not previously considered by board," it said.

The documentarians said they have a "trifecta of elements" that will "prove that the officially proposed fuel-air explosion did not cause the crash." That trifecta includes forensic evidence, firsthand sources and corroborating witnesses, and the new statements from retired investigators.

The evidence proves that "one or more ordnance explosions outside the aircraft caused the crash," the producers said. But it does not identify or speculate on the source of the ordnance explosions.

All 230 people aboard TWA 800 died when the plane, headed for Paris, exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean shortly after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. Scores of witnesses observed a streak of light and a fireball, giving early rise to suspicions that the terrorists had struck the plane with a rocket.

Investigators concluded the streak was likely burning fuel streaming from the plane's wing tank.

  • Thumb Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean.we where lied to? That doesn't sound right

 

 

My Big Brother would never lie to me. 

Back when the tragedy happened (wow, almost 20 years ago now), so many people were questioning the final report.   Not just conspiracy theorists, but respected individuals.  

 

What seems odd to me is that the 747, in operation since 1969, has never had a similar catastrophic failure of its fuel system.  As you see from the grounding of the 787 because of the battery issues, design flaws such as those on TWA 800 just don't magically appear.  The 747 was being flown by almost every carrier with no fuel tank problems.

 

For me, I just want justice for the innocents who lost their lives, possibly because of a terrorist act or military (ours) accident.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back when the tragedy happened (wow, almost 20 years ago now), so many people were questioning the final report.   Not just conspiracy theorists, but respected individuals.  

 

What seems odd to me is that the 747, in operation since 1969, has never had a similar catastrophic failure of its fuel system.  As you see from the grounding of the 787 because of the battery issues, design flaws such as those on TWA 800 just don't magically appear.  The 747 was being flown by almost every carrier with no fuel tank problems.

 

For me, I just want justice for the innocents who lost their lives, possibly because of a terrorist act or military (ours) accident.  

The problem with the "vapors" theory is that those cirucumstances as described have been repeated hundreds of thousands of times with 747s and other commericial airliners. By the logic of the FBI, planes should have been exploding across the globe like popcorn. The FBI also made a big deal about releasing a "reeenactment"(a cartoon basically) to reinforce their ridiciulous idea, conplete with the 747 flying without it's front, defying the laws of physics. As to the fuel tank thing, there was an instance of US fighter jets where that apparently did happen and every one of those jets were taken out of seriice and repaired. By contrast no 747s were so removed. Also recall JFK press secretary Pierre Salinger said right after the explosion that the plane was shot down by the US Navy by accident. And in fact there was a US Navy exercise underweigh in that area that night. Salinger was immediately straitjacketed.There aren't many SAMs nor MANPADs that can reach that kind of height(overe 13,000 feet) effectively so a terrorist attack seems unlikely. Though one goofy thing; flight 800 because of typical airport delays took the takeoff time of an El Al flight. Simplest Occam's Razor explanation is that Salinger was probably correct and the Navy didn't want to acknowledge a bad mistake.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"3 people can keep a secret if 2 of them are dead" --Benjamin Franklin

 

The investigators might have been incorrect about the cause, but the conspiracy theories aren't plausible in my opinion.

 

Terrorism:  A terror victory that *huge* and nobody claims responsibility?  Seriously?  If a kid's guinea pig dies in Nebraska there's a terror group somewhere willing to say they did it.

 

Navy:  Here's the deal..I was on a ship.   If a 'test shot' hits a plane, at least 10 people in CIC know about it.  Sailors are proud of the shipwide 'rumor mill', and I promise within 24hrs EVERYONE on that boat quietly knows about it...even the ones without security clearances.   And we believe that all of those sailors have kept quiet for 20 years?  

(meanwhile seal team 6 can't keep quiet about a classified operation for 6 months?)

Edited by JerryK
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the "vapors" theory is that those cirucumstances as described have been repeated hundreds of thousands of times with 747s and other commericial airliners. By the logic of the FBI, planes should have been exploding across the globe like popcorn. The FBI also made a big deal about releasing a "reeenactment"(a cartoon basically) to reinforce their ridiciulous idea, conplete with the 747 flying without it's front, defying the laws of physics. As to the fuel tank thing, there was an instance of US fighter jets where that apparently did happen and every one of those jets were taken out of seriice and repaired. By contrast no 747s were so removed. Also recall JFK press secretary Pierre Salinger said right after the explosion that the plane was shot down by the US Navy by accident. And in fact there was a US Navy exercise underweigh in that area that night. Salinger was immediately straitjacketed.There aren't many SAMs nor MANPADs that can reach that kind of height(overe 13,000 feet) effectively so a terrorist attack seems unlikely. Though one goofy thing; flight 800 because of typical airport delays took the takeoff time of an El Al flight. Simplest Occam's Razor explanation is that Salinger was probably correct and the Navy didn't want to acknowledge a bad mistake.

That's what I keep thinking.  Up until recently, the 747 had been the work horse of the airline industry.  They were/are the most reliable plane flying.

"3 people can keep a secret if 2 of them are dead" --Benjamin Franklin

 

The investigators might have been incorrect about the cause, but the conspiracy theories aren't plausible in my opinion.

 

Terrorism:  A terror victory that *huge* and nobody claims responsibility?  Seriously?  If a kid's guinea pig dies in Nebraska there's a terror group somewhere willing to say they did it.

 

Navy:  Here's the deal..I was on a ship.   If a 'test shot' hits a plane, at least 10 people in CIC know about it.  Sailors are proud of the shipwide 'rumor mill', and I promise within 24hrs EVERYONE on that boat quietly knows about it...even the ones without security clearances.   And we believe that all of those sailors have kept quiet for 20 years?  

(meanwhile seal team 6 can't keep quiet about a classified operation for 6 months?)

Love the Benjamin Franklin quote.  what a way with words.

 

Thanks for the "real life" perspective from your days in the Navy (thanks for your service, BTW).  I have a hard time believing it was the Navy, too.  That's why i can't wait to hear what "new" information the former investigators might share.

 

Eh.  Pierre Salinger's story came from some friend who had allegedly attended a briefing where it was mentioned.  The story was suposedly discredited, but I don't think it was on a particularly close timeline with the incident.  The report had allegedly been discredited before it went to Salinger.

Back then, I thought Salinger was a crack pot.  Now, maybe not.   We'll see after the documentary airs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that jumps out;this happened in 1996. All of these NTSB guys are probably now retired and vested in their pension plans. They don't have anything to lose if they're telling the truth. When they were on the federal payroll, they had to toe the line. Now the check comes every other week no matter what, guys probably want to get this off their chests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that jumps out;this happened in 1996. All of these NTSB guys are probably now retired and vested in their pension plans. They don't have anything to lose if they're telling the truth. When they were on the federal payroll, they had to toe the line. Now the check comes every other week no matter what, guys probably want to get this off their chests.

Yup.  That's what was said in a TV report on the matter.  Tough to lose an important job like that when you have a family to support, mortgage to pay, etc.  You know "they" would have made it impossible for these folks to ever get another position in that field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Ssw the documentary on Epix last night. Very compelling case that it was not a fuel tank explosion and was likley a missile. The main sources for the movie were the chief investigators of TWA and the NTSB.

What was very odd; the movie expressly did not speculate at all as to who did this. The writer and physics PhD who did this were more focused on the investigation, the FBI bigfooting everyone else, the cartoons they sued to impress on the public what they wanted people to think, tha manipluation of media coverage, the coverup than who was really involved in the attack/accident. Nonetheless a reminder that government will go to great lengths to lie to us all on a grand scale.

Edited by Bugg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that jumps out;this happened in 1996. All of these NTSB guys are probably now retired and vested in their pension plans. They don't have anything to lose if they're telling the truth. When they were on the federal payroll, they had to toe the line. Now the check comes every other week no matter what, guys probably want to get this off their chests.

 

Ah. The public dole. Utopia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thought I saw something when this broke that the evidence all points to internal explosion, something like thousands of pieces and fragments and there wasn't one single piece of the plane that showed an external explosion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that jumps out;this happened in 1996. All of these NTSB guys are probably now retired and vested in their pension plans. They don't have anything to lose if they're telling the truth. When they were on the federal payroll, they had to toe the line. Now the check comes every other week no matter what, guys probably want to get this off their chests.

 

Ah. The public dole. Utopia.

 

So now you got it figured that if a guy retires to his pension, he's on the dole?

 

Oh brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might not be hating, but you are disparaging retirees. 

 

To dole is defined as "to distribute in charity."  Charity has nothing to do with a pension.  A pension is compensation paid by the employer after the employee has retired, and in this case as well as most others, the employee only qualities after many years of service.

 

No similarity between a dole and a pension at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...