New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[Axxman300]

But it was tested for explosives and it was pointed out that they would have dissolved in the water.

Then why did they find residue from explosives used in a security test?

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/24/...ound-traces-of-explosive-on-twa-jetliner.html

https://apnews.com/article/6c4cee4e3a2a152ace74ac5cbe89a16e

A month before the crash of TWA Flight 800, the airliner was used to train bomb-sniffing dogs, and the explosives in those exercises could explain the traces of chemical residue found on the plane, a government official said Friday.

Investigators have been stymied for weeks in determining exactly what caused the plane to plunge into the Atlantic Ocean July 17, killing all 230 people on board.

Traces of chemicals often used in bomb-making have been found. But investigators say they have not gathered enough evidence to conclude that the plane was brought down by a terrorist act.

A federal official familiar with the investigation said on Friday that in June, as part of a routine training exercise, the TWA plane was used as a testing ground for bomb-sniffing dogs.

``It was this plane, and the test bombs contained explosive material,″ said the official.

Weird. They found trace levels of chemicals. Imagine what they would have found with an actual bomb.

 

[Vixen]

Then why did they find residue from explosives used in a security test?

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/24/...ound-traces-of-explosive-on-twa-jetliner.html

https://apnews.com/article/6c4cee4e3a2a152ace74ac5cbe89a16e



Weird. They found trace levels of chemicals. Imagine what they would have found with an actual bomb.

See this citation here:

The NTSB considered the possibility that the explosive residue was due to contamination from the aircraft's use in 1991 transporting troops during the Gulf War or its use in a dog-training explosive detection exercise about one month before the accident.[1]:258–259 Testing conducted by the FAA's Technical Center indicated that residues of the type of explosives found on the wreckage would dissipate completely after two days of immersion in sea water (almost all recovered wreckage was immersed longer than two days).[1]:259 The NTSB concluded that it was "quite possible" that the explosive residue detected was transferred from military ships or ground vehicles, or the clothing and boots of military personnel, onto the wreckage during or after the recovery operation and was not present when the aircraft crashed into the water

wiki

I think this is what Braidwood was referring to. It is interesting the accident investigators ruled out explosives by terrorists by saying the residues must have come from previous bomber dog training or from off the boots of military personnel in previous flights. It even said some could be due to the adhesive used in seat upholstery.

This reminds me of how Barry George got off the murder rap of broadcaster Jill Dando, as it was ruled the ammunition residues found on his clothing could have got there by chance.

Do you know what? At least TWA800 was investigated for explosives.

The Estonia never was, despite a neat petal-shaped hole exactly opposite a matching bolt on the side visor at the port bulkhead.

ETA: The bow visor was tested for explosives but none was found.

 

[Andy_Ross]

See this citation here:

wiki

I think this is what Braidwood was referring to. It is interesting the accident investigators ruled out explosives by terrorists by saying the residues must have come from previous bomber dog training or from off the boots of military personnel in previous flights. It even said some could be due to the adhesive used in seat upholstery.

This reminds me of how Barry George got off the murder rap of broadcaster Jill Dando, as it was ruled the ammunition residues found on his clothing could have got there by chance.

Do you know what? At least TWA800 was investigated for explosives.

The Estonia never was, despite a neat petal-shaped hole exactly opposite a matching bolt on the side visor at the port bulkhead.

TWA800 was investigate for explosives because it was seen to explode in mid air.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed material pertaining to another thread

 

[Agatha]

Recent posts in this thread were moved from another thread, in which they were off-topic. Some of the moved posts may contain reference to the MS Estonia, but do not discuss that incident in this thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[catsmate]

But it was tested for explosives and it was pointed out that they would have dissolved in the water.

And yet in forensic science traces of explosives can, and have, been recovered from objects immersed in water.

 

[jadebox]

And yet in forensic science traces of explosives can, and have, been recovered from objects immersed in water.

Yes. The quote above said the "residues of the type of explosives found on the wreckage" would dissipate, not residues from all types of explosives.

 

[Leftus]

No..... but but BUT Pierre Salinger knew that it was actually a SAM (fired in error by a US Navy ship) which brought that aircraft down! He had actual eyewitnesses who saw a missile flying up towards the aircraft and exploding! And don't you think any observant person would know a surface-to-air missile when they saw one??!

Salinger even held press conferences and everything! I think you'll find he knew what he was talking about. The official NTSB report was a whitewash - the shadowy powers-that-be nobbled the FBI and NTSB in order to protect the US Navy and the Govt. This thing went right to the top!!

But yeah: you carry on believing the nonsense about the short circuit in the centre fuel tank. As if that could ever bring down a 747....

Fired in error? Did someone hit "autofire" and run to the head for a minute?

I'm not aware of any missile that could have taken down a plane in that manner. I worked on the HAWK system between 1989 and 1993, so I am familiar with the product during the time this happened. The missile in question would have been a variant of the RIM-66M which bears a striking similarity to the HAWK. They break the sound barrier as they leave the launcher. Someone on the surface of the ship would have noticed. There is no way that nobody noticed. If it happened that way, everyone from a deck hand to the cook would have noticed. (also, they have a self destruct so if they noticed, someone in fire control could have made it go boom safely.)

But, hey, I'm a government stooge to this day. What do I know.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Fired in error? Did someone hit "autofire" and run to the head for a minute?

I'm not aware of any missile that could have taken down a plane in that manner. I worked on the HAWK system between 1989 and 1993, so I am familiar with the product during the time this happened. The missile in question would have been a variant of the RIM-66M which bears a striking similarity to the HAWK. They break the sound barrier as they leave the launcher. Someone on the surface of the ship would have noticed. There is no way that nobody noticed. If it happened that way, everyone from a deck hand to the cook would have noticed. (also, they have a self destruct so if they noticed, someone in fire control could have made it go boom safely.)

But, hey, I'm a government stooge to this day. What do I know.

Sea Dart could have done it but the problem there is they weren't a US system.

 

[Leftus]

Sea Dart could have done it but the problem there is they weren't a US system.

It's also a proximity HE fragmentation missile. Get close enough, frag and poke holes in everything. So while I'm not an expert in that specific missile, I would put it in the same category as my HAWK, of which I'm no longer an expert, but feel secure in knowing the limitations of the class of missile in discussion.

I just think it's funny people put so much faith in people who have never even seen a SAM speak with such authority on the subject. Back in the day, I saw news reports on it, saw the recordings of it and said "Nope, not a missile" I've seen them in action, and they look nothing like that. Real ones, with real warheads. I've even put my hands on them. But, again, I'm a government stooge, so I'm in on it, I guess.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's also a proximity HE fragmentation missile. Get close enough, frag and poke holes in everything. So while I'm not an expert in that specific missile, I would put it in the same category as my HAWK, of which I'm no longer an expert, but feel secure in knowing the limitations of the class of missile in discussion.

I just think it's funny people put so much faith in people who have never even seen a SAM speak with such authority on the subject. Back in the day, I saw news reports on it, saw the recordings of it and said "Nope, not a missile" I've seen them in action, and they look nothing like that. Real ones, with real warheads. I've even put my hands on them. But, again, I'm a government stooge, so I'm in on it, I guess.

I was a WEM in the RN in the 80s. I used to look after them.
I saw them in action in the South Atlantic

 

[Leftus]

I was a WEM in the RN in the 80s. I used to look after them.
I saw them in action in the South Atlantic

I wasn't trying to imply you to were one of the those conspiracy nuts. I'm certain you would agree that the difference between any number of SAMs or even AAM are largely the same. They chase heat or a radar beam. Chasing a beam isn't pin point. They get into the neighborhood and go boom and they don't make impact. HAWK, I think, considered inside a meter to be good enough. I can't speak to the Sea Dart with any authority, but I feel safe in saying they work on the same principal.

 

[jadebox]

They get into the neighborhood and go boom and they don't make impact. HAWK, I think, considered inside a meter to be good enough. I can't speak to the Sea Dart with any authority, but I feel safe in saying they work on the same principal.

When I worked on the AMRAAM program during its testing phase years ago, the press started reporting that the missile had never hit its target. It wasn't designed to, of course.

In any case, as I probably mentioned years ago, the eyewitness accounts of seeing a missile don't match what a missile would really look like at night. The witnesses reported a streak of light. But, a missile would actually look like just a moving dot.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I was doing a bit of looking into this question earlier. It's just barely plausible that a man portable anti aircraft missile could do this. The plane exploded at about 16 000 feet, which is near the limit of such missiles. There were various types available at that time, which reported maximum ranges between 16 and 20 000 feet.

And to range the plane in question, they'd have to pretty much shoot straight up. No significant horizontal offset. Because, as Mark Watney said, Pythagoras is a dick.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And to range the plane in question, they'd have to pretty much shoot straight up. No significant horizontal offset. Because, as Mark Watney said, Pythagoras is a dick.

Sea Dart had a range of 40 nm and the) Mod 2 upgrade gave it 80 nm
It's ceiling was 60,000.
It was powered by a Rolls-Royce ramjet that powered it for the entire flight to the target.

It still wouldn't have looked like a streak of light though. After the solid fuel launch booster separated it didn't have much of a glow at all even in the dark.

 

[mikegriffith1]

A number of people = Salinger following goombahs.

Usually the idiots say it was a missile from a US Navy ship. Never mind there were no missile capable ships in the region and somehow an entire crew that launched a missile has kept silent about it for years.

Your reading on TWA 800 appears to have been very one sided. The case for TWA 800 being downed by a missile is very credible and is supported by many, many commercial pilots, former military pilots, former military missile personnel, and aircraft engineers, among many others, not to mention over 100 of the eyewitnesses who witnessed the plane's destruction.

The government's animation that supposedly explains what the eyewitnesses saw has been soundly debunked. The animation shows the separated fuselage flying upward by some 3,000 feet and then descending, which is supposedly the upward-streaking object that so many witnesses described. This is preposterous and impossible. Even the NTSB eventually rejected the animation, which, for some odd reason, was done by the CIA. The radar data show that the fuselage flew virtually straight for a very short time and then dropped like a rock after separating from the nose of the aircraft, which is exactly what the eyewitnesses said occurred after they saw an object streaking toward the aircraft.

The only kooky theory about TWA 800's destruction is the government's silly theory, which says that the center fuel tank exploded from an alleged electrical spark, an event unknown in aviation history before or since, and an event that defies everything we know about jet fuel.

I recommend the 2013 documentary TWA Flight 800 directed by Kristina Borjesson, a former CBS producer. The documentary includes appearances by whistleblowers who worked on the federal investigation into the crash, eyewitnesses, and various scientists. The documentary is available on Netflix, Amazon Prime, and YouTube to rent or own (for a very reasonable price).

 

[jadebox]

Nope.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Your reading on TWA 800 appears to have been very one sided. The case for TWA 800 being downed by a missile is very credible and is supported by many, many commercial pilots, former military pilots, former military missile personnel, and aircraft engineers, among many others, not to mention over 100 of the eyewitnesses who witnessed the plane's destruction.

The government's animation that supposedly explains what the eyewitnesses saw has been soundly debunked. The animation shows the separated fuselage flying upward by some 3,000 feet and then descending, which is supposedly the upward-streaking object that so many witnesses described. This is preposterous and impossible. Even the NTSB eventually rejected the animation, which, for some odd reason, was done by the CIA. The radar data show that the fuselage flew virtually straight for a very short time and then dropped like a rock after separating from the nose of the aircraft, which is exactly what the eyewitnesses said occurred after they saw an object streaking toward the aircraft.

The only kooky theory about TWA 800's destruction is the government's silly theory, which says that the center fuel tank exploded from an alleged electrical spark, an event unknown in aviation history before or since, and an event that defies everything we know about jet fuel.

I recommend the 2013 documentary TWA Flight 800 directed by Kristina Borjesson, a former CBS producer. The documentary includes appearances by whistleblowers who worked on the federal investigation into the crash, eyewitnesses, and various scientists. The documentary is available on Netflix, Amazon Prime, and YouTube to rent or own (for a very reasonable price).

So you've just decided to be wrong in as many threads as possible?

 

[JayUtah]

The case for TWA 800 being downed by a missile is very credible...

Speaking as a professional aerospace engineer with decades of experience including forensic methods:

No.

 

[jadebox]

Speaking as someone who has seen hundreds of rockets launched at night, I assure you the descriptions given by the eyewitnesses do not match what a missile would look like.

 

[kookbreaker]

I am just going to point out that you are replying to a 10 year old post I made in this thread. Even so, nothing convincing has come out on the Salinger side.

Your reading on TWA 800 appears to have been very one sided. The case for TWA 800 being downed by a missile is very credible and is supported by many, many commercial pilots, former military pilots, former military missile personnel, and aircraft engineers, among many others, not to mention over 100 of the eyewitnesses who witnessed the plane's destruction.

And I am wagering you could not name any of these so claimed pilots and other alleged experts.

The government's animation that supposedly explains what the eyewitnesses saw has been soundly debunked.

According to......?

The animation shows the separated fuselage flying upward by some 3,000 feet and then descending, which is supposedly the upward-streaking object that so many witnesses described. This is preposterous and impossible.

As your aeronautics degree and decades of airplane failure experience tell you?

<Further nonsense and spam for a kook video (as if this thread already wasn't about a kook's video) snipped>

But hey, maybe if you are going to follow up maybe you can tell us who the "Long Island Police" are?

Mikey faceplants again.