PNE Online
Welcome to PNE-Online. Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.

TWA Flight 800 Investigators Claim the Official Crash Story Is a Lie

deany

0
Patron
Joined
Dec 30, 2007
Messages
14,361
Location
Sunny Preston
TWA_Flight_800_Investigators_Claim-ec90879686652ec5332e2db317e664c9


A new film claims the official government report on the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996 is an elaborate fabrication, but the most shocking part of the story is that charges are being leveled by some of the very investigators who put the report together. Six experts who appear in the film were members of the National Transportation Safety Board investigation team that concluded the crash was an accident, but they now claim they were silenced by their superiors. The movies, "TWA Flight 800" will debut on EPIX TV next month, on the 17-year anniversary of the crash.
TWA Flight 800 was en route from JFK Airport in New York to Paris, France, when it exploded and crashed off the coast of Long Island, killing all 230 people on board. From the very beginning, there were some who speculated that the plane was the victim of a terrorist attack, leading the FBI to conduct its own criminal investigation. Among the possibilities that were suggested as the cause were a bomb in the cargo hold, or an anti-aircraft missile. Several witnesses even claimed they saw an object or streak of light that looked liked a missile or rocket moving toward the plane before it exploded.
The final NTSB reported said that faulty wiring connected to a central fuel tank caused a blast that destroyed the fuesalage, however, there were still many skeptics and conspiracy theorists who have long doubted that official story. In one particularly famous example, Pierre Salinger, a former Press Secretary for President John Kennedy and reporter for ABC News, claimed he'd seen proof that the U.S. Navy shot down the plane and then covered it up.
Now, those theories are likely to get a new airing, thanks to accident investigators who worked on the TWA 800 case, but say they were not allowed to speak up at the time of the official report. The experts include NTSB and TWA accident investigators, who say they are only able to speak up now that they are retired. According their statements in the film, they believe the official explanation is wrong and the damage was caused by an explosion that came from outside the plane.
The filmmakers won't speculate on what could have caused such an explosion, and haven't yet offered up evidence to support their theory (you'll have to watch on July 17), but they are asking the NTSB to re-open the investigation. Whether or not that happens, or even if a follow-up reaches the same conclusions as the original, this new film will ensure that the alternate theories and claims up a cover will probably never be put to rest.


http://news.yahoo.com/twa-flight-800-investigators-claim-official-crash-story-120157562.html
 
Had a quick gander at this earlier..for once, Deany, I think there is summat worth looking further into on this story.
Will await further developments.
 
So what happened?

The Americans shot down a plane but then said it was an accident?

What did this help them achieve?

I do like a good failure to lay things to rest, helps us ignore the more important and more current problems.
 
So what happened?

The Americans shot down a plane but then said it was an accident?

What did this help them achieve?


I do like a good failure to lay things to rest, helps us ignore the more important and more current problems.

I`m sure the internet will soon provide answers. Many of them.

You pays yer money, you takes yer choice.
 
shin pads,

If you think it's of no concern or not a problem that the US government may have lied about how 230 people died then you're a bit of a loon to say the least IMO.
 
So what happened?

The Americans shot down a plane but then said it was an accident?

What did this help them achieve?

I do like a good failure to lay things to rest, helps us ignore the more important and more current problems.
Really? You really cant see what it would achieve by covering up a potential embarrasment for total ineptness?
 
Really? You really cant see what it would achieve by covering up a potential embarrasment for total ineptness?

Well it would be a good idea to cover up shooting down a passenger plane - of course

What I mean is what good would shooting a plane down be?

Since 9/11 is apparently an excuse to invade the middle east and was a US plan to achieve public support then surely it is inconsistent to say that they accidentally shot down a plane with no real plan.

Then again inconsistency is consistent... ;)
 
Well it would be a good idea to cover up shooting down a passenger plane - of course

What I mean is what good would shooting a plane down be?

Since 9/11 is apparently an excuse to invade the middle east and was a US plan to achieve public support then surely it is inconsistent to say that they accidentally shot down a plane with no real plan.

Then again inconsistency is consistent... ;)
Ineptness, perhaps? Someone on there that maybe they wanted terminated? Maybe they knew something about the plane that meant they had to destroy it quickly? Who knows? Their could well be a myriad of valid, or more likely, invalid reasons for some type of attack on the plane that they felt was better the public werent aware of. Not that theyd ever cover such a thing up, of course.
 
Christ
You will be telling us they didn't land on the moon next or that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy

To be fair..this one is slightly different because over 200 witnesses claimed to have seen a streak of light hit the plane...and the FBI had 80 staff working on the proposition that it WAS a missile. So there IS reason to ask questions.

Sadly, the FBI did not interview or collate statements in any normal manner...making it difficult to work out whether the witnesses had actually simply seen the plane in flames, or a spill from the fuel tank.

Personally....I don`t think it was a missile. But I am interested in WHY a number of former investigators on the case are now saying there was a cover up...and what form they allege it took.
 
Since I have no real concern about this one, I will wait for some truth seekers to appear clever by posting it on here.
Nothing clever 6pence,only facts, like film melts at 200 degree C and the Moon surface in the Sun light is about 230 degree C ,work that out if you can for perfect pictures taken by Armstrong with no view finder:eek:
Not even going to mention fogging by radiation:rolleyes:
Ever got in a car parked in the sun all day:eek: oh they had great air con in the lander powered by batteries:rolleyes:
You could not make it up
 
Last edited:
Nothing clever 6pence,only facts, like film melts at 200 degree C and the Moon surface in the Sun light is about 230 degree C ,work that out if you can for perfect pictures taken by Armstrong with no view finder:eek:
Not even going to mention fogging by radiation:rolleyes:
Ever got in a car parked in the sun all day:eek: oh they had great air con in the lander powered by batteries:rolleyes:
You could not make it up

The SURFACE of the moon gets to over 230 during the lunar day...but the moon has no air, so heat cannot travel from the surface to a camera. Your argument ignores the laws of physics.
Radiative heat is possible...but the camera had passive heat shielding (same as the lander) and did not overheat. The film did not get warm.
In short, it would only do so if it was in direct sunlight.

The films were stored in metal cans and protected from radiation.

Other film cameras have worked from unmanned missions.

Oh, and Armstrong took loads of bad pictures. NASA released only the good exposures.


None of this is made up.
 
The SURFACE of the moon gets to over 230 during the lunar day...but the moon has no air, so heat cannot travel from the surface to a camera. Your argument ignores the laws of physics.
Radiative heat is possible...but the camera had passive heat shielding (same as the lander) and did not overheat. The film did not get warm.
In short, it would only do so if it was in direct sunlight.

The films were stored in metal cans and protected from radiation.

Other film cameras have worked from unmanned missions.

Oh, and Armstrong took loads of bad pictures. NASA released only the good exposures.


None of this is made up.
Ha Ha........ In your face :)
 
The SURFACE of the moon gets to over 230 during the lunar day...but the moon has no air, so heat cannot travel from the surface to a camera. Your argument ignores the laws of physics.
Radiative heat is possible...but the camera had passive heat shielding (same as the lander) and did not overheat. The film did not get warm.
In short, it would only do so if it was in direct sunlight.

The films were stored in metal cans and protected from radiation.

Other film cameras have worked from unmanned missions.

Oh, and Armstrong took loads of bad pictures. NASA released only the good exposures.


Jesus Badas, been in the sun today, got warm did you ? so how does the suns heat travel 90 million miles with out the aid of your heat exchanger called air.
Passive heat shielding my arse
Used by Neil Armstrong in the Apollo 11 mission, this camera was made to be as simple as possible. The operating controls were redesigned so that it could easily be handled by astronauts, despite the clumsy suits they had to wear. The shutter was modified, lubricants had to be chosen with unprecedented care because of the risk that conventional lubricants could boil off in vacuum and condense all over the optical surfaces of the lens.
Why, no problem in the Laws of Bardas
NASAs own words here Badass ,not yours:rolleyes:
Spacesuits help astronauts in several ways. Spacewalking astronauts face a wide variety of temperatures. In Earth orbit, conditions can be as cold as minus 250 degrees Fahrenheit. In the sunlight, they can be as hot as 250 degrees. A spacesuit protects astronauts from those extreme temperatures.
What extreme temperatures, no such thing in the Laws of Bardas :rolleyes:
 
The SURFACE of the moon gets to over 230 during the lunar day...but the moon has no air, so heat cannot travel from the surface to a camera. Your argument ignores the laws of physics.
Radiative heat is possible...but the camera had passive heat shielding (same as the lander) and did not overheat. The film did not get warm.
In short, it would only do so if it was in direct sunlight.

The films were stored in metal cans and protected from radiation.

Other film cameras have worked from unmanned missions.

Oh, and Armstrong took loads of bad pictures. NASA released only the good exposures.


Jesus Badas, been in the sun today, got warm did you ? so how does the suns heat travel 90 million miles with out the aid of your heat exchanger called air.
Passive heat shielding my arse
Used by Neil Armstrong in the Apollo 11 mission, this camera was made to be as simple as possible. The operating controls were redesigned so that it could easily be handled by astronauts, despite the clumsy suits they had to wear. The shutter was modified, lubricants had to be chosen with unprecedented care because of the risk that conventional lubricants could boil off in vacuum and condense all over the optical surfaces of the lens.
Why, no problem in the Laws of Bardas
NASAs own words here Badass ,not yours:rolleyes:
Spacesuits help astronauts in several ways. Spacewalking astronauts face a wide variety of temperatures. In Earth orbit, conditions can be as cold as minus 250 degrees Fahrenheit. In the sunlight, they can be as hot as 250 degrees. A spacesuit protects astronauts from those extreme temperatures.
What extreme temperatures, no such thing in the Laws of Bardas :rolleyes:
Erm, yeh Bardas, Erm, in your face?
 
Top