TWA Flight 800

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

SGTObvious RE:TWA Flight 800 8/13/2003 12:15:37 PM

I haven't seen evidence, I've seen claims of evidence, and claims that pretty much ignore the fact that the aircraft was well out of reach of a shoulder fired missile at the time. Of course, some conspiracy theorists picked up on this and switched gears to "errant US Navy Missile" but there is nothing really to back this up. The Egyptian Air kamikaze into the sea, though, that deserves more looking into. According to the NTSB, the most common last words of a depserate pilot are "Oh Sh!T!!!" not "Praise Allah!"

Quote Reply

ChrisWI RE:TWA Flight 800 8/13/2003 12:28:59 PM

EA 999 was suspicious

Quote Reply

American Kafir RE:TWA Flight 800 8/13/2003 7:02:56 PM

I'm with Sarge on this one. There's far more evidence of a Islamic terrorist connection to Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing than there is to the crash of TWA 800. In fact, TWA 800 is rather unique in that no Islamic terrorist group has come forward to claim credit for it, even if they really didn't do it.

Quote Reply

SGTObvious Further to shoulder fired missiles 8/14/2003 6:43:58 AM

It's not hard to determined "cause of death" to an airplane when the cause was a shoulder fired missile. These things are heat seekers, which means they will explode, if they can, at or near an engine. The blast damage to the enginer will be evident. If they don't explode close to the engine, they will explode near the aircraft since they are designed to explode on "proximity" not contact. The nearby explosion will put a lot of obvious shrapnel damage into the plane. I recall almost all of the plane being salvaged, and the heavy blast damage was at the center fuel tank, not an engine, and no sign of external shrapnel.

Quote Reply

NewGuy RE:Further to shoulder fired missiles 8/14/2003 1:54:37 PM

TWA800 plane was *far* too high for a shoulder-fired missile to reach it, so that theory has zero possibility. The fact is this: the authorties found evidence of plastic explosives having detonated -inside- the plane, which can only mean a bomb aboard. Any other theory is simply bunk. NewGuy

Quote Reply

swhitebull RE:Further to shoulder fired missiles 8/14/2003 2:04:29 PM

JimDunnigan was on Fox News this morning- pretty much took apart all of the nonsense of Stingers stick being viable, and what it REALLY takes to take out a big jet, since the engine is designed to take heavy vibrations and heat, which is where a heat seeker would likely hit. He DID give a warning to private jets, since they arent designed to take a lot of punishment. GO JIM!! swhitebull

Quote Reply

ChrisWI RE:Further to shoulder fired missiles 8/15/2003 7:09:36 AM

So NewGuy, you think it was a bomb? I always thaught it was either a bomb or a missile

Quote Reply

NewGuy RE:Further to shoulder fired missiles 8/15/2003 12:45:16 PM

ChrisWI, I don't merely think it was a bomb, I am certain is was a bomb. Look at the evidence: 1) No ManPad SAM in the world could have reached the plane at the altitude it was at when it suffered the explosion. 2) Investigators found traces of plastic explosive (specifically Semtex) on items from -inside- the plane. No missile would do this. Plus no missile warhead that I know of uses Semtex. 3) Significant evidence at the bombing trial was presented that pointed to a bomb being smuggled on board the plane -- this included both physical evidence and witnesses. So no other theory but a bomb fits the known facts and evidence of the incident. NewGuy

Quote Reply

ChrisWI why ... 8/15/2003 12:46:34 PM

Then why did they cover it up?

Quote Reply

American Kafir RE:why ... 8/15/2003 3:46:26 PM

>Then why did they cover it up?< It might cause a panic if Americans were to learn that they were unprotected from terrorism. Remember Clinton's terrorism policy was pretty much "sh*t happens"

Quote Reply

ChrisWI RE:why ... 8/15/2003 5:13:27 PM

i mean its been like 5 years since then, just tell the truth

Quote Reply

giblets RE:why ... 8/16/2003 2:20:03 PM

a distinction between an external and internal explosion are pretyy evident (internal blows out, external blows in), also, as pointed out, the explosives used. Also, again pointed out, to cause enough structural damage to an aircraft to destroy the fueselage, is pretty big. In any case it would be the brits who would have wonder about their security. Also you would need pretty detailed info the be able to detect the exact aircraft ( i.e an american owned 747) on that route (very busy, many flights from india etc, stop in London before heading on to new york, especially back then before the 777 and A340), at night, at 35,000ft (10miles). Had it been just outside an airport (like mombassa) the odds of that type of attack would be higher. But back then there was not as many missiles on the markert ( the collapse of the USSR has greatly aided that. For more info on the info that lead to the bomb conclusion, the Beeb has a fair bit of info link

Quote Reply

Ashley-the-man 3/2/2007 1:44:27 AM

American Kafir RE:why ... 8/15/2003 3:46:26 PM >Then why did they cover it up?link American Kafir RE:why ... 8/15/2003 3:46:26 PM >Then why did they cover it up?link

Quote Reply

Ashley-the-man 3/2/2007 1:45:03 AM

American Kafir RE:why ... 8/15/2003 3:46:26 PM >Then why did they cover it up?link

Quote Reply

Ashley-the-man 3/2/2007 1:45:51 AM

American Kafir RE:why ... 8/15/2003 3:46:26 It might cause a panic if Americans were to learn that they were unprotected from terrorism. Remember Clinton's terrorism policy was pretty much "sh*t happens" With the bus that is Hillary picking up momentum, I wonder if the Bush administration will ever get their dooty together in time before the 2008 election to start meaningful investigations of the most corrupt criminal enterprise in American history – namely the Clinton family values. One wonders how naïve is Bush and more so Rove as to the possibility that Hillary will continue the plundering and emasculation of the United States. Or are they so underestimated that they felt confident that they could win in 2000 and 2004 and then unleash wide scale investigation during 2008 that would recapture the White House for their successor and return congress to republican control. I doubt they are so adept and calculating – they can’t hold a candle to the democrats and the Clintons in that regard – that they can orchestrate the type of investigation that is called for. They may simply be faced with the Roswell dilemma. If they uncover too much of what occurred by and under the Clintons then the scandal will make Watergate look like a panty raid. If there truly are aliens at Roswell, release of evidence of visitation by aliens would so disrupt society that a continued cover-up is the only responsible option. From the postings to this thread, it appears that few are aware of the books put out by Jack Cashill, and Peter Lance on the alleged cover-up of the downing of TWA 800. With Scooter Libby awaiting a verdict in his trial for outing Valerie Plame, Sandy Berger gets a wrist slap as he continues a cover-up for his old boss Bill Clinton. For those not initiated, here is a link to the Jack Cashill website that is conducting an ongoing investigation into the TWA 800 disaster and the possible tie in to the wider war on terror subject. link

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - November 23, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us