• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former investigators 'break silence' about NTSB cover-up of TWA Flight 800 crash

Fenton said:
Didn't they say it was a sending unit ? The device that gives the pilots an indication on fuel capacity ?

Sorry, thats low voltage, low power with a circuit breaker. There is no way a wire to or from the sending unit could produce the heat needed to light a tank full of Jet-A
Click to expand...

The plane was 27 years old. A lot of its wireing was in disrepair and maybe a high voltage wire caused a spark to jump to the low voltage wire of the sending unit, causing a short circuit which provided the spark to ignite the jet a fuel in the center tank.
 
Henry David said:
I know there are many younger posters for whom this is news, but for those of us who lived through the event, many have known for all these years that it was a coverup from the very moment it happened. Understandable, for the government does not like to admit its mistakes.

I'm 90% certain it was simply a friendly fire incident by the Navy. Wrong place at the wrong time for 800.

But some theorize that a VIP was onboard who had angered somebody somewhere. No opinion on that for me, but it is possible.
Click to expand...

Except there were no navy ships in missle range of twa 800 that night, and no radar data of any missile attack.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Ordinarily I am not into conspiracy theories but this has my attention. Several of the former investigators are alleging a cover up and I think in this instance where there is smoke there may indeed be fire. Clinton was very soft on terrorism and basically just didn't want to deal with it so that adds even more fuel to this fire.
Click to expand...

If in fact it was a terrorist group that did it, why did no one take public support for it?
 
As noted by others, the entire episode seemed a bit implausible at the time. IN no small part because I do not believe there is another credible case of an explosion like this on a major jetliner in the last 3 decades. They do not just "blow-up". Outside of deliberate sabotage, or such as a missile, the failures are always mechanical.

As for doubts about folks recalling what they saw, there were numerous reports of a streak up from the horizon at that time. From normal folks, unrelated.

And lastly, we have another incident, in the same region, flying out of JFK, exactly two months after 9-11, that reeks of coincidence. American Airlines 587, Nov 12, 2011.

Nov 12, 2001:
Plane crashes in Rockaway, New York
Plane crashes in Rockaway, New York — History.com This Day in History — 11/12/2001

The explanation given never seemed plausible to me. In both cases I see a huge incentive for the government to make it sound as random accidents, rather than panic the public, illustrating what were severe weaknesses in our methods at the time. Assuming we were not told the truth, naturally.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
As noted by others, the entire episode seemed a bit implausible at the time. IN no small part because I do not believe there is another credible case of an explosion like this on a major jetliner in the last 3 decades. They do not just "blow-up". Outside of deliberate sabotage, or such as a missile, the failures are always mechanical.

As for doubts about folks recalling what they saw, there were numerous reports of a streak up from the horizon at that time. From normal folks, unrelated.

And lastly, we have another incident, in the same region, flying out of JFK, exactly two months after 9-11, that reeks of coincidence. American Airlines 587, Nov 12, 2011.

Nov 12, 2001:
Plane crashes in Rockaway, New York
Plane crashes in Rockaway, New York — History.com This Day in History — 11/12/2001

The explanation given never seemed plausible to me. In both cases I see a huge incentive for the government to make it sound as random accidents, rather than panic the public, illustrating what were severe weaknesses in our methods at the time. Assuming we were not told the truth, naturally.
Click to expand...

I saw a show called "seconds from disaster" that had a episode about both the air crash in queens, and twa 800. The crash in queens was caused by the pilot putting the plane through a menuver to get out of turbulence caused by the jetwash of the plane in front of him. The menuver was jam the rudder hard in alternating directions. Unfortunatly the stress of the action broke the tail rudder clean off the plane.

As for twa 800, the show agrees with the investigations conclusion and showed how a short circuit in the wireing located in the center wing tank ignited the jet-a fuel vapors inside the nearly empty tank.

The show goes through the investigation to show how the conclusions were made.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I saw a show called "seconds from disaster" that had a episode about both the air crash in queens, and twa 800. The crash in queens was caused by the pilot putting the plane through a menuver to get out of turbulence caused by the jetwash of the plane in front of him. The menuver was jam the rudder hard in alternating directions. Unfortunatly the stress of the action broke the tail rudder clean off the plane.

As for twa 800, the show agrees with the investigations conclusion and showed how a short circuit in the wireing located in the center wing tank ignited the jet-a fuel vapors inside the nearly empty tank.

The show goes through the investigation to show how the conclusions were made.
Click to expand...

I have read all of that, and the issues regarding United 587 were in the link that I provided.

If either of these were a cover-up, naturally there will be a cover story blaming something else, which basically repeats the findings of the original investigation.

With TWA 800, there were very credible average folks, who had been out on the south shore that night, as that is where they lived, who claimed they saw a streak up from the horizon, followed by an aerial fireball. It is difficult to dismiss a half-dozen separate eyewitnesses, and the official explanation rings a bit hollow.
 
Fenton said:
Didn't they say it was a sending unit ? The device that gives the pilots an indication on fuel capacity ?

Sorry, thats low voltage, low power with a circuit breaker. There is no way a wire to or from the sending unit could produce the heat needed to light a tank full of Jet-A
Click to expand...

Thanks for your conclusive investigation into the mishap. Sounds like your dad's an electrician!
 
Folks. If interested, watch this video, at least from :40 to the end. Its not a part of the special, but rather done by a Local NY station. Besides the very credible folks that they interview, the reporter claims that there were over 200 eyewitnesses on the ground who report the missile trail. As it was about 8:35 on a warm summer night on the South shore at the time of the event, that sounds about right.

 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Except there were no navy ships in missle range of twa 800 that night, and no radar data of any missile attack.
Click to expand...

THAT is debateable.

Apparently one of the key elements to be presented by the new documentary is new, or more precise, radar data.

I hope you're not suggesting that the US Navy would never lie to protect itself?
 
Deuce said:
They are hyping up the "new evidence" and the "cover up." There is a specific agenda behind it. Do you think evidence that it wasn't a missile will be presented in a balanced fashion?



Eyewitness accounts of pretty much anything are to be taken with a grain of salt.
Eyewitness accounts of an aircraft 10 miles offshore and 3 miles up are to be taken with a whole pile of it.

It is amazing just how far we are capable of twisting our own memories. A lot of those people probably actually do "remember" seeing that streak of fire. Did they actually see it? Or did they see a plane explode in flight, fire scattering about, and think "it was a missile." Later on, their memory of the event is colored by the perception that they saw a missile. It wouldn't be hard for minor temporal details like "when was separate flaming thing seen" to be mixed up.

At that kind of distance, the fire trail from a small anti-aircraft missile would be very faint.
Click to expand...

As I remember, a MANPAD type missle was eliminated because the 747 was around 13,000 feet, too high for such a weapon.

I agree with your comments regarding eye witness statements. The Central Park 5 and other notorious murders are a prime example. But the sheer number of witnesses means something in this case. How much can be confused in a night sky when a missle is launched? Not much.

But what's more telling in this case is the effort at coverup by the government, right from the very start. The POTUS interrupting normal TV to announce an airplane crash? I guess railroad accidents are next, eh? The FBI being named the lead agency when it should have been NTSB? That's spin control, nothing more. The AD eventually issued by the FAA is another sign of "highly irregular" behavior on the part of the federal leviathan.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The plane was 27 years old. A lot of its wireing was in disrepair and maybe a high voltage wire caused a spark to jump to the low voltage wire of the sending unit, causing a short circuit which provided the spark to ignite the jet a fuel in the center tank.
Click to expand...

If it had been avgas in that center tank instead of JetA, you might have a point. Very low flash point for kerosene.
 
This is obviously Bush's fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom