TWA Flight 800 Shot Down by Military Missile?

deanhills · Apr 22, 2009

Flight TWA 800 crashed on 17 July 1996 south of Long Island. US Government says that it happened as a result of a spark that ignited in its fuel tank. Others say that it could have been shot down by a military missile. What do you think?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/twa.html

I think it was accidentally shot down and very successfully covered up.

DodgeFB · Apr 22, 2009

I have no idea what happened. I do remember when it happened. If it was shot down someday some guy on his deathbed will confess to his family. But will they ever tell the world?

The Parakeet · Apr 22, 2009

I don't think that this one is true.

The "Others" who are saying this are the loony bin group that say that the evil government's been behind just about everything bad that every happened.

I can't find much, other than that there is no reason for them to cover it up. Plus...why wouldn't they just blame it on terrorists if they were going to cover it up. Some claim that we are actually covering a terrorist attack up...which makes little to no sense.

The official report looked into the possiblity of a missile strike or bomb for 6 months and ultimately decided against it. There's no real reason to doubt their evidence.

Plus...I'm pretty sure a US navy ship did accidentally take out an Iranian passenger flight once about 20 years or so ago (hope I remember this correctly). We were upfront about it and admitted that it was an honest accident that was made with justifiable logic.

*Edit - Found more info. There have been a few times where a missile accidentally took out a passenger plane, so we knew what to look for. None of it matched up. There was no entrance hole. The wreckage didn't look right. It just doesn't work to the theory. Their solution is pretty good and any of the theories seem to be the standard crowd that just wants there to be some epic story behind the accident.

deanhills · Apr 23, 2009

The Parakeet said:
I don't think that this one is true.

The "Others" who are saying this are the loony bin group that say that the evil government's been behind just about everything bad that every happened.

I can't find much, other than that there is no reason for them to cover it up. Plus...why wouldn't they just blame it on terrorists if they were going to cover it up. Some claim that we are actually covering a terrorist attack up...which makes little to no sense.

The official report looked into the possiblity of a missile strike or bomb for 6 months and ultimately decided against it. There's no real reason to doubt their evidence.

Plus...I'm pretty sure a US navy ship did accidentally take out an Iranian passenger flight once about 20 years or so ago (hope I remember this correctly). We were upfront about it and admitted that it was an honest accident that was made with justifiable logic.

*Edit - Found more info. There have been a few times where a missile accidentally took out a passenger plane, so we knew what to look for. None of it matched up. There was no entrance hole. The wreckage didn't look right. It just doesn't work to the theory. Their solution is pretty good and any of the theories seem to be the standard crowd that just wants there to be some epic story behind the accident.

Thanks for all the researches. Really enjoyed reading those. I've been fascinated for such a long time with this disaster and am still puzzled by it. I understand what you are saying, but equally a spark in the fuel tank, I can't buy that either. If that were the truth, there should have been similar events with other airplanes, not a one-off. There has to be another explanation.

The Parakeet · Apr 23, 2009

I believe that Boeing fixed the model issue (that sounds right in my mind at least).

Some aviator explained it as making sense. The tanks get empty, but they are near the engines, so they heat up. This creates an environment where a spark could be disastrous. That said, there are some legitimate theories that it could have been a malfunctioning pump on the plane or a cargo door opening in mid flight.

deanhills · Apr 26, 2009

The Parakeet said:
I believe that Boeing fixed the model issue (that sounds right in my mind at least).

Some aviator explained it as making sense. The tanks get empty, but they are near the engines, so they heat up. This creates an environment where a spark could be disastrous. That said, there are some legitimate theories that it could have been a malfunctioning pump on the plane or a cargo door opening in mid flight.

I don't understand. I thought the flight had just departed, so the fuel tanks must have been completely full? It wasa still ascending.

The Parakeet · Apr 26, 2009

I believe that it had been in the air for a bit. Either way, it doesn't matter as much (I'm not an engineer, so these things get a bit jumbled in my head). The fuel vapors got set off by a spark and caused an explosion. Pretty simple. It's the best guess that they could come up with that fit all of the evidence.

It also does seem to be a serious theoretical problem. It seems that the FAA had two mandatory upgrades to fix the problem and Boeing invented a system that's only job is to prevent this from happening again.

deanhills · Apr 28, 2009

Very sad however, as the plane was full of young people for summer vacation in Paris, France. We probably will never know for sure what happened.

porsteamboy · Apr 28, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkWXBTsgsA This is what happened, bare wire running through fuel tank. Sad but true.

porsteamboy · Apr 29, 2009

The Parakeet said:
I don't think that this one is true.

The "Others" who are saying this are the loony bin group that say that the evil government's been behind just about everything bad that every happened.

I can't find much, other than that there is no reason for them to cover it up. Plus...why wouldn't they just blame it on terrorists if they were going to cover it up. Some claim that we are actually covering a terrorist attack up...which makes little to no sense.

The official report looked into the possiblity of a missile strike or bomb for 6 months and ultimately decided against it. There's no real reason to doubt their evidence. lus...I'm pretty sure a US navy ship did accidentally take out an Iranian passenger flight once about 20 years or so ago (hope I remember this correctly). We were upfront about it and admitted that it was an honest accident that was made with justifiable logic.

*Edit - Found more info. There have been a few times where a missile accidentally took out a passenger plane, so we knew what to look for. None of it matched up. There was no entrance hole. The wreckage didn't look right. It just doesn't work to the theory. Their solution is pretty good and any of the theories seem to be the standard crowd that just wants there to be some epic story behind the accident.

Parakeet, The ship was the USS Vincennes CG-49. The US Government claim was; they mistakenly identified the Iranian Airbus, flight 655 as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter. This took place over the Strait of Hormuz toward the end of the Iran-Iraq war, there was 290 people on board. It cost the US Government $61.8 million in compensation.

The Parakeet · Apr 30, 2009

Thanks. I was trying to remember more details on the incident, but my google-fu has been a little weak lately.

deanhills · May 2, 2009

porsteamboy said:
Parakeet, The ship was the USS Vincennes CG-49. The US Government claim was; they mistakenly identified the Iranian Airbus, flight 655 as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter. This took place over the Strait of Hormuz toward the end of the Iran-Iraq war, there was 290 people on board. It cost the US Government $61.8 million in compensation.

I remember it well, it was widely reported and a scary incident for the world. Probably took lots of diplomatic moves to sort it out amicably in the end.

porsteamboy · May 3, 2009

deanhills said:
I remember it well, it was widely reported and a scary incident for the world. Probably took lots of diplomatic moves to sort it out amicably in the end.

There was alot going on in the Strait of Hormuz at the time. Gun battles with Iranian gun boats, Navy seals blowing up Iranian oil platforms, US ships hiting mines, USS Stark FFG-31 being hit by Iraqi missles fom a Mirage F-1 fighter and 37 sailors killed. ( USS Stark's top Officers were reprimaned and forced to retire ) In the case of the USS Vincennes and the downing of flight 655, the officers were awared medals for their actions, the US government didn't offer an apology or admit any wrong doings, although investigations indicate that maynot be the case.

deanhills · May 4, 2009

porsteamboy said:
There was alot going on in the Strait of Hormuz at the time. Gun battles with Iranian gun boats, Navy seals blowing up Iranian oil platforms, US ships hiting mines, USS Stark FFG-31 being hit by Iraqi missles fom a Mirage F-1 fighter and 37 sailors killed. ( USS Stark's top Officers were reprimaned and forced to retire ) In the case of the USS Vincennes and the downing of flight 655, the officers were awared medals for their actions, the US government didn't offer an apology or admit any wrong doings, although investigations indicate that maynot be the case.

Makings of a movie this one! With all the talent that went into "Crimson Tide" with Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman.

porsteamboy · May 16, 2009

deanhills said:
Makings of a movie this one! With all the talent that went into "Crimson Tide" with Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman.

They wanted to make a movie but the Three Stooges are no longer alive, so they nixed it.

deanhills · May 17, 2009

porsteamboy said:
They wanted to make a movie but the Three Stooges are no longer alive, so they nixed it.

No way! I had a serious movie in mind

porsteamboy · May 18, 2009

deanhills said:
No way! I had a serious movie in mind

Well, so did they, until they read the script.

notimpressed · Jun 18, 2010

First I find the category in genral lame. Not the discussion just the title and its descriptions. I think its very silly, and bias to use the term conspiracy. While many topics are off the wall. This one hardly is. There have been many people that are far from kooks that have belvied with good reason for a long time this thing was shot down. This category is an instant credibility squasher. The term conspriacy isnt even used properly.

Frankly there is so many people that have felt this plane was shot down for so ling with so much evidnece, I dont belive this topic belongs here at all.

Accident, is the last on my list of possibilities.

porsteamboy · Jun 20, 2010

notimpressed said:
First I find the category in genral lame. Not the discussion just the title and its descriptions. I think its very silly, and bias to use the term conspiracy. While many topics are off the wall. This one hardly is. There have been many people that are far from kooks that have belvied with good reason for a long time this thing was shot down. This category is an instant credibility squasher. The term conspriacy isnt even used properly.

Frankly there is so many people that have felt this plane was shot down for so ling with so much evidnece, I dont belive this topic belongs here at all.

Accident, is the last on my list of possibilities.

There is no doubt that the plane was shot down. The U.S. claimed it was a mistake and thought that it was a military plane, others disagree and think it was intentional.

notimpressed · Jun 20, 2010

Just be clear, I was refering to Flight 800 that went down in the water East of New York in 1996

TWA Flight 800 Shot Down by Military Missile?

Similar threads