• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

yes thank you Beachnut I have read your posts with great interest and learnt a lot.
 
Mudcat said:
Beachnut, the way I'm reading it appears that the explosion was the result of a combination of faulty design and inadequate safety procedures, is that about right?
Click to expand...
The quick fix would be having cool fuel in the CWT at takeoff at a level Boeing recommends; not sure what the amount was; maybe 5,000 to 15,000 pounds, more for the kids and wife. This would make the ignition by a spark impossible, "".

http://search.nasa.gov/search/search.jsp?nasaInclude=twa+800

The first study covers the wires, and what can happen. They cover a lot of extra stuff.

It would be better if wires which end up in the fuel bays, were not routed with other wires, and or better insulated, etc. Think the recommendations cover steps to help stop, or make the risk less.

http://www.twa800.com/ntsb/8-15-00/docket/Ex_20N.pdf
More stuff. I have not found all the reports and studies on 800; think the first link has 2 or 3 more studies.

I have found conspiracy sites which twist the studies and lie about 800 studies - like 911, people make up stuff with partial knowledge.

There is a risk for fuel tank problems, ... The NTSB figure out the possible risk early, on the investigation as they pieced the aircraft together, and studied what the plane did.
 
the only use for me in this thread is learning from the pros, like Beachnut and others, same as for the Vaccine thread, learnt a lot from that too from the people who know what they are talking about along with Jay Utah, Abaddon et al in the Birther thread, JFK thread, and Apollo threads, Nick terry and others in the Holocaust thread as well.

Thank you one and all.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
You start so many threads this way. STOP. Nobody gives a damn what you "heard". Excise the phrase "I have hread..." from your vocabulary.

Instead, use the phrase, "This source indicates ..." where the word "source" is a link that backs up your claim.
Click to expand...

I don't save all the links to videos, articles and things like that.
 
and mall the articles you point to you have clearly not understood and the videos are junk kook ones.
 
twa800.png


From: The Final Report: Investigation of TWA Flight 800 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9aAQSKyzPU

The CIA simulation video showed that the plane was cut in two and the rear part flew upwards. As I wrote earlier that isn't what the above picture shows.

Here is the CIA simulation (the cut in two from 36:30) and listen to the witnesses: Conspiracy?: TWA Flight 800 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44uu4zWQEEs

They say something like: That's not what a saw! And they talk about a missile like object.

Those are false witnesses! And the picture above shows only the later part of the drop from the sky. So the CIA simulation may very well be correct!
 
Anders I'm trying to follow your line of reasoning here.

According to what I understand of what you're saying the government hatched a plot to bring down an American aircraft in American airspace, killing a bunch of Americans in the process either using a rocket or a bomb. Instead of pinning the blame on some patsies they decide to cover the whole thing up using a very visible, expensive, and long investigation... For what?

I'm sorry Anders, but the hypothesis fails.
 
Mudcat said:
Anders I'm trying to follow your line of reasoning here.

According to what I understand of what you're saying the government hatched a plot to bring down an American aircraft in American airspace, killing a bunch of Americans in the process either using a rocket or a bomb. Instead of pinning the blame on some patsies they decide to cover the whole thing up using a very visible, expensive, and long investigation... For what?

I'm sorry Anders, but the hypothesis fails.
Click to expand...

My hypothesis is that those witnesses in the video are lying through their teeth! They didn't see any object moving towards the plane. The CIA simulation video is fairly accurate. The purpose of those false witnesses is to create a smokescreen, a conspiracy theory bait, to hide the real conspiracy behind it.

The real conspiracy is that it was a shape charge on the outside of the fuel tank that caused the fuel-air mixture to explode. And the plane was empty of people. So it was a remote/autopilot controlled plane deliberately blown up at a certain position out in the ocean and near New York City of course since the 9/11 attacks would happen there later.

The purpose of the staged event was to force the government to do a coverup for the nonexistent victims.
 
or if we use rationality and leave silly fantasies behind and accept the facts in the report.
 
Anders Lindman said:
My hypothesis is that those witnesses in the video are lying through their teeth! They didn't see any object moving towards the plane. The CIA simulation video is fairly accurate. The purpose of those false witnesses is to create a smokescreen, a conspiracy theory bait, to hide the real conspiracy behind it.

The real conspiracy is that it was a shape charge on the outside of the fuel tank that caused the fuel-air mixture to explode. And the plane was empty of people. So it was a remote/autopilot controlled plane deliberately blown up at a certain position out in the ocean and near New York City of course since the 9/11 attacks would happen there later.

The purpose of the staged event was to force the government to do a coverup for the nonexistent victims.
Click to expand...

I don't always agree with Orcham's Razor, but when I do it's right.

In this case your hypothesis is several magnitudes more complicated than the commonly accepted version of events. Your hypothesis, it has too many moving parts to work therefore it doesn't work.
 
Mudcat said:
I don't always agree with Orcham's Razor, but when I do it's right.

In this case your hypothesis is several magnitudes more complicated than the commonly accepted version of events. Your hypothesis, it has too many moving parts to work therefore it doesn't work.
Click to expand...

The FAA person I posted about earlier said that it was either a bomb or a collision with another aircraft. Nothing about a spark. The spark hypothesis came much later and is still today unconfirmed.

I'm watching a bit of this video at the moment to see if they discuss anything about a shape charge. They said that they had looked at many possible options: TWA Flight 800 Crash Final NTSB Report Day 1 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuRCvfr1vOA
 
Anders Lindman said:
My hypothesis is
Click to expand...

... Childish nonsense

And the plane was empty of people. So it was a remote/autopilot controlled plane deliberately blown up at a certain position out in the ocean and near New York City of course since the 9/11 attacks would happen there later.

The purpose of the staged event was to force the government to do a coverup for the nonexistent victims.
Click to expand...

One day, when you grow up, you will hopefully regret this sick obsession of yours with claiming that people who died didn't exist.
 
ComfySlippers said:
... Childish nonsense



One day, when you grow up, you will hopefully regret this sick obsession of yours with claiming that people who died didn't exist.
Click to expand...

I'm just politically incorrect. It's kind of like tabu to say anything but condolences in relation to such victims. If my hypothesis is false, then I hope the families of the victims understand that I'm questioning the official version, and that it's not my intent to disrespect real victims.
 
I haven't heard them discussing a shape charge yet but the comments from about 1 hour and 39 minutes are suspicious: TWA Flight 800 Crash Final NTSB Report Day 1 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuRCvfr1vOA

The expert said that an explosive device would cause damage over a large area. Really? :confused: Can't a shape charge punch a tiny hole while leaving the surrounding area basically intact?

ETA: Also check out the smirking guy in the background. :D
 
Last edited:
I haven't listened to all of the almost 6 hours report but the only thing that comes near discussing a shape charge is what I posted earlier about how an expert said that an explosive device would cause a large area of damage, and from about 4 hours and 18 minutes, they mention "small explosive charge" when listing possible causes.

TWA Flight 800 Crash Final NTSB Report Day 1 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuRCvfr1vOA

That's it!!! That's the ONLY information they had about it! A 6 hour long and final report about exclusively the TWA 800 event. If YOU had been the owner of that plane and if the insurance didn't cover causes by sparks, would YOU be satisfied by that report?! :confused: I don't think so.
 
Have you considered the possibility that the reason that shaped charges aren't mentioned is because that there wasn't any shaped charges?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom