• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

patchbunny

Graduate Poster
patchbunny
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
1,854
Location
Right about... here.
Filmmaker Tom Stalcup is releasing a new film on July 17th alleging that TWA Flight 800, which crashed in 1996 due to an explosion in the center fuel tank, was actually brought down by an external explosion(s).

An unreleased documentary on the 1996 TWA Flight 800 explosion offers "solid proof that there was an external detonation," its co-producer said Wednesday.

"Of course, everyone knows about the eyewitness statements, but we also have corroborating information from the radar data, and the radar data shows a(n) asymmetric explosion coming out of that plane -- something that didn't happen in the official theory," Tom Stalcup told CNN's "New Day."

A number of people have come forward, "all saying the same thing: that there was an external force -- not from the center wing tank, there's no evidence of that -- but there is evidence of an external explosion that brought down that plane," Stalcup said.

He cited "corroborating information from the radar data" and complained that "not one single eyewitness was allowed to testify -- that's unheard of."
Click to expand...

I've not read anything on this crash in some time. Anyone familiar with Tom Stalcup and what radar data he might be presenting that hasn't been considered before?
 
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.
 
patchbunny said:
Filmmaker Tom Stalcup is releasing a new film on July 17th alleging that TWA Flight 800, which crashed in 1996 due to an explosion in the center fuel tank, was actually brought down by an external explosion(s).



I've not read anything on this crash in some time. Anyone familiar with Tom Stalcup and what radar data he might be presenting that hasn't been considered before?
Click to expand...
It is a movie. If it was real they would not be waiting 27 days to present the "big story", break the big conspiracy. Would be a crime. Instead it is woo. Movie fiction, breaking the big story is, Pulitzer.

Remember, when you are delayed in a 747, do not run the AC packs on the ground with the center wing tank empty, but not purged of fuel. Guess what 747 had to be inspected for the same problem... hint (one)

Filmmaker asserts new evidence
Click to expand...
..., taking junk and making up nonsense.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...eories-crash-twa-flight-800-article-1.1376580

The former NTSB investigators were what? Collecting parts, engineers, or conspiracy nuts with part of the puzzle. The NTSB can take evidence at anytime and check their results. Oops, the evidence is not real, it is part of a movie from a man who is upset with the NTSB and FBI.

http://tomstalcup.wordpress.com/about/
http://flight800.org/
 
Last edited:
When it comes to TWA 800, I would refer people to the book entitled Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers by Mary Roach. Specifically, the chapter entitled "Beyond the Black Box" in which the forensic examination of the human remains from the disaster is recounted with an emphasis towards just what can be learned about an incident from them.

The short version: a fuel tank explosion, not a missile strike, is the story told by the human remains from the flight.
 
I just happened to watch this on CNN at the fastfood chain I am at, atm. One of the journalists shows a video with someone (probably Stalcup but I dunno) looking at radar of the flight. The journalist showed that there was no missile blip on the radar heading to the plane and the guy didn't deny it.

What a lame CT.
 
We often criticize CTs for jumping to conclusions before the evidence is in, should we wait till we have seen the documentary before dismissing it?
 
But if it was a shoulder-fired missile launched by terrorists in a small boat, why would the investigators cover that up? Other passenger jets have been attacked by terrorists. Investigators didn't deny that Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 were terror attacks.
 
LaurelHS said:
But if it was a shoulder-fired missile launched by terrorists in a small boat, why would the investigators cover that up? Other passenger jets have been attacked by terrorists. Investigators didn't deny that Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 were terror attacks.
Click to expand...

According to CTists, whatever the government says is a lie. So if they say it wasn't terrorists, it was, and if they say it was, it wasn't.
 
How plausible is the shoulder-fired missile theory anyway? Presumably this missile would have been fired from a small boat at night with the target at an altitude of about three miles and it scored a nearly direct hit. Do missiles exist that are that portable and accurate, and how readily available are they?

I'm surprised that we haven't heard more CT around AA flight 587, the airliner that crashed into a New York neighborhood shortly after 9/11 and killed 265 people. It seemed to vanish from the news remarkably quickly, considering that it was even deadlier than frequently-discussed accidents like Pan Am Flight 103 and TWA Flight 800. The NTSB cited rudder overuse as the cause. Come on CT'ers, get on this.
 
Kilaak Kommander said:
How plausible is the shoulder-fired missile theory anyway? Presumably this missile would have been fired from a small boat at night with the target at an altitude of about three miles and it scored a nearly direct hit. Do missiles exist that are that portable and accurate, and how readily available are they?
Click to expand...



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.

So, if they had one of the best available, and were skilled enough to make one of the hardest shots they could attempt, it's possible.

Of course, it still needs to be shown that this was actually done, and also leaves open the question of why, if they had access to the weapons and the skills to use them, they didn't use them again? They'd have to have had more than just one missile in order to learn how to use them this well. Would they really have blown off all but one in practice?
 
Wouldn't terrorists typically take responsibility, one way or another if they had shot the flight down?
 
Flight 800 Accident Report, from the NTSB.

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/summary/AAR0003.html

The movie will be a rehash of failed woo.
http://www.amazon.com/In-Blink-Eye-Pat-Milton/dp/0375500863


Lenbrazil said:
We often criticize CTs for jumping to conclusions before the evidence is in, should we wait till we have seen the documentary before dismissing it?
Click to expand...
The movie is a rehash of the same old CTs on 800. Do I win the million? The movie maker is nuts on 800, no secret. If there is new evidence you would present it to the NTSB, they would check it. There is no new evidence, there no MACH 2, or MACH 4 debris ejected from 800 falling apart from the Center Wing Tank fire/explosion. Unfortunately this is not the first time a jet has fallen apart in flight killing all due to fuel tank/fuel pump/fuel system accidents/failures/bad procedures.

The FBI jumped on this case because the falling debris to a witness looking out to sea can appear to be fire going up, like a missile rising, when it is fire falling, the reflection on the sea gives an illusion the fire is going up... illusions by witnesses which did not match a MACH 2 missile launched, which had to be checked against witness statements. The statements do not match a the physics of a missile launch, they matched the reality of a in flight fire break up of an aircraft falling, over the sea.

Most accidents don't get NTSB and FBI investigations - 800 did. A double investigation... and CTs rise up out of ignorance. It is bad enough the center wing tank and air-condition packs are involved; think of all the times we flew on 747s... When the President's plane is 747, the accident gets attention.
 
Last edited:
It's a shame he's become so obsessed with this. He was at FSU when I was, and he's actually done a ton of stuff at the MagLab there. I believe this is the only CT he's in to...hopefully. Shame to see an fellow Nole going off the deep end.
 
fdbrian said:
Wouldn't terrorists typically take responsibility, one way or another if they had shot the flight down?
Click to expand...

Heck, three terrorist groups took responsibility for the Ermenonville air disaster in '74.

And there are plenty of writers willing to use conspiracy theories as the basis for plots, Nelson DeMille bought Nightfall out in '04 (Wikipedia) and Tom Clancy had a distorted version in one the Powerplay series of novels.
"And the crash of the 747 commuter plane in Los Angeles some months back. American investigators attributed its explosion after takeoff due to a spark in the conductive wiring inside the center fuel tank. This was true. But the cause of the spark remained undetermined in official reports, and the abrupt retirement of a senior FBI official who publicly speculated that it might have been a microwave pulse was swept under the agency's very large carpet."
Click to expand...
Shadow Watch, Penguin Books, 1999, p. 275
 
Anders Lindman said:
NTSB urged to reopen review of TWA Flight 800 crash -- http://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...national-transportation-safety-board/2437829/
Click to expand...
Did you read your source, and research the people? No? Why not?

Wow, comedy. We have In the film, former investigators Hank Hughes from the NTSB; what did Hank Do? He was in charge of finding a place to reconstruct TWA 800. Wow. What else did he do? He itemized the seats and aircraft interior. Wow.

What did they find? No missile damage. oops
No bomb damage. Oops.

Wow, another nut who thinks made up nonsense trumps evidence.


HENRY F. HUGHES, SENIOR ACCIDENT INVESTIGATOR
Click to expand...
Sounds impressive, but his work on Flight 800 proved no missile, no explosives. Wonder if he read the final report? Did you? NO

Is Henry a missile expert? No.

Safety Board in 1985 and joined as a member of
the Highway Division. Approximately 3 years later, I transferred to​

the Bureau of Technology, where I cross-trained.
Click to expand...

Highway Division. Must of been why he was assigned finding a place to reconstruct Flight 800, which was done and no parts showed missile damage, or damage from a bomb. He did his job and now is saying what? Nothing.


Your source debunks the CT more than it supports the woo of a few nuts.
James Kreindler, a Manhattan lawyer specializing in aviation accident litigation whose firm represented families of about 130 Flight 800 victims, said Wednesday that he was "100% convinced" it was a center wing fuel tank explosion that brought the plane down, as the government investigation determined.
Click to expand...
Ironically the lawyer thinks it was a scavenger pump, not sure why a pump would be running in an empty tank (empty but with left over fuel which was able to be heated by the air packs below the tank, which left the tank in a state the fuel could ignite with an ignition source; something more difficult in a "cold" tank of fuel fumes. Do you CT guys do science? No? Why not?
​
 
beachnut said:
Did you read your source, and research the people?
Click to expand...

"Former crash investigators are urging the National Transportation Safety Board to reopen the review of what brought down TWA Flight 800 in a fireball in 1996.

Former investigators from the NTSB, TWA and Air Line Pilots Association suggest in a documentary that missiles caused the plane to explode near Long Island and kill 230 people aboard. The plane was flying from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport to Paris."

It says investigators. Could include any. Cherry picking one or two wouldn't tell the whole story.
 
Anders Lindman said:
"Former crash investigators are urging the National Transportation Safety Board to reopen the review of what brought down TWA Flight 800 in a fireball in 1996.

Former investigators from the NTSB, TWA and Air Line Pilots Association suggest in a documentary that missiles caused the plane to explode near Long Island and kill 230 people aboard. The plane was flying from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport to Paris."

It says investigators. Could include any. Cherry picking one or two wouldn't tell the whole story.
Click to expand...

Go ahead, make my day, show me a qualified expert from your list of "investigators". BTW, Henry was most likely your best "investigator" the most qualified, who was not even a pilot, explosive expert, missile expert, etc.

BTW, the timing of all the "missile" witnesses makes it not a missile. But why understand or read the investigation when you can google your way to woo, and remain in ignorance and back some nuts you have called, "investigators". Did you read the NTSB report? No. What did air conditioning packs have to do with the accident? Any clue?

I cherry picked the best "investigator" you have. But please list your expert "investigators". Make my day, show me the rest of the nuts who can't read or figure out why it was not a missile or bomb, which was the conclusion based on the work of all the "investigators".

It is funny as I did read the reports, congress investigation, auxiliary reports, appendixes, and I have knowledge of what the USAF did during the investigation as possible problems with systems emerged which we in the USAF had to follow, seeing as Air Force One was a 747... Wake up, you are behind about 17 years.

Yes, you have spent seconds, and I spent years. You might want to study this before you pick the team of woo for this failed conspiracy nonsense. Sad to see Henry go nuts, if he did on this issue - his work for the NTSB on 800 shows no missile, no bomb. Guess the guy who take inventory and finds the place to assemble the aircraft is not the expert on what the evidence shows.

Feel free to pick anything from the Accident Report and prove it is wrong. Anytime. What, you don't have time to do research?

Did you read the report yet?

Sick people do this, they make up stuff, then say nothing of value...
The documentary doesn’t speculate on what did cause the explosion 17 years ago but does push for re-opening the investigation into the disaster.
Click to expand...
wow, like Gage on 911 lies, the 911 truth version of woo on 800. Sad, sick nuts make up lies, but can't do more than ask for a new investigation; because they can't understand the first one, and can't figure out the evidence. And they don't have evidence.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
“We don’t know who fired the missile,” said Jim Speer, an accident investigator for the Air Line Pilots Association, one of those seeking a new review of the probe. “But we have a lot more confidence that it was a missile.” -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...31b096-d93f-11e2-b418-9dfa095e125d_story.html
Click to expand...

“We don’t know who fired the missile,” said Jim Speer, an accident investigator for the Air Line Pilots Association, one of those seeking a new review of the probe. “But we have a lot more confidence that it was a missile.”
Click to expand...
Wow. What is his evidence? Nothing. He has no evidence. Darn you sure picked a winner, he has nothing to offer but talk. You are gullible, on 911 and now 800. Is there a CT you don't fall for? Or just the ones with zero evidence, just big BS talk?


Oops, you failed to read the Accident Report. You bring woo, and have no idea what the accident report says. Did Jim Speer read the report? Is he really an accident investigator? Cars? Or what?
 
Last edited:
bob_kark said:
Is radar even capable of discerning that level of detail?
Click to expand...
Civil ATC RADAR in 1996? No.

LaurelHS said:
But if it was a shoulder-fired missile launched by terrorists in a small boat, why would the investigators cover that up? Other passenger jets have been attacked by terrorists. Investigators didn't deny that Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 were terror attacks.
Click to expand...
Kilaak Kommander said:
How plausible is the shoulder-fired missile theory anyway? Presumably this missile would have been fired from a small boat at night with the target at an altitude of about three miles and it scored a nearly direct hit. Do missiles exist that are that portable and accurate, and how readily available are they?
Click to expand...
Horatius said:
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.

So, if they had one of the best available, and were skilled enough to make one of the hardest shots they could attempt, it's possible.

Of course, it still needs to be shown that this was actually done, and also leaves open the question of why, if they had access to the weapons and the skills to use them, they didn't use them again? They'd have to have had more than just one missile in order to learn how to use them this well. Would they really have blown off all but one in practice?
Click to expand...
I'm very dubious about the idea of a man portable SAM being able to do this; while some in 1997 had the theoretical capability to reach 5km altitude, their slant range would require them to be fired very close to the aircraft's position.
The most commonly available MANPAD at the time, the SA-7 family, couldn't achieve such a kill; they didn't have the altitude capability.

If you look at actually aircraft shootdowns using such weapons, e.g. Lionair Flight 602, Air Rhodesia Flight 825, they tend to occur near landing or take-off, at low altitudes.
 
Don't you people get it?

Flight 800 was a test for the prototype remote hijacking system they developed for 9/11. Only it failed to work so the Navy shot it down to prevent the flight crew from telling anyone that something tried seizing control of the aircraft.

Duh.
 
catsmate1 said:
I'm very dubious about the idea of a man portable SAM being able to do this; while some in 1997 had the theoretical capability to reach 5km altitude, their slant range would require them to be fired very close to the aircraft's position.
The most commonly available MANPAD at the time, the SA-7 family, couldn't achieve such a kill; they didn't have the altitude capability.

If you look at actually aircraft shootdowns using such weapons, e.g. Lionair Flight 602, Air Rhodesia Flight 825, they tend to occur near landing or take-off, at low altitudes.
Click to expand...



Well, the point is, it can't be dismissed out of hand as an impossibility. But it's so improbable that the burden of proof will be quite high.

It also points out the "Why did they do it that way?" problems with the Terrorist Missile hypothesis. Anyone good enough to make this shot would know that they're working at extreme range, which dramatically increases the chance of failure. What was so important about this particular shot that they decided to take it, in preference to almost any other, easier shot they could have tried?

As you said, all confirmed examples of planes being shot down with these missiles occurred at low altitudes. Why would this one have been different?
 
Horatius said:
Well, the point is, it can't be dismissed out of hand as an impossibility. But it's so improbable that the burden of proof will be quite high.
Click to expand...

That's more than enough for a CT. The standard there is: If there is a small possibility that a small part of the theory isn't complete rubbish, then it's TRUE!

Or at least, they need to raise money for further investigation.
 
Anders Lindman said:
“We don’t know who fired the missile,” said Jim Speer, an accident investigator for the Air Line Pilots Association, one of those seeking a new review of the probe. “But we have a lot more confidence that it was a missile.” -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...31b096-d93f-11e2-b418-9dfa095e125d_story.html
Click to expand...

Ok...lets look at that for a second...let's say it was a missile...

If it was a terrorist missile, then why didn't the terrorists "take credit" for it?

...and if it was a naval missile, are we really expected to believe that all the sailors on that ship actually were able to keep that a secret?


No...this doesn't even qualify as "interesting"...just sad...
 
Horatius said:
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.

So, if they had one of the best available, and were skilled enough to make one of the hardest shots they could attempt, it's possible.

Of course, it still needs to be shown that this was actually done, and also leaves open the question of why, if they had access to the weapons and the skills to use them, they didn't use them again? They'd have to have had more than just one missile in order to learn how to use them this well. Would they really have blown off all but one in practice?
Click to expand...

One basis for questioning the investigation is that the aircraft was cut in two just forward of the wings. The concept of a magic spark setting off lean jet fuel vapor is far-fetched but if that had occurred, it would seem that there would have been a central explosion and not a clean cut forward of the tank.
The damage was consistent with an expanding rod warhead [see, for example, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/rim-7.htm] on a radar guided missile such as the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow. This warhead depends on a guillotine effect and the damage was just that; a clean cut at the wing root which is also the center of radar mass. The aircraft size and altitude argue for something larger than a shoulder launched missile as does the type of damage.
Given this, the supposition is that the Navy inadvertently launched the missile and the disaster was then covered up.
 
beachnut said:
The FBI jumped on this case because the falling debris to a witness looking out to sea can appear to be fire going up, like a missile rising, when it is fire falling, the reflection on the sea gives an illusion the fire is going up
Click to expand...
I don't get this part. Reflections on the see appear to as fire in the sky? What?

My understanding of the incident was that after the explosion, while the front of the aircraft fell, the rear shot up and that's what looked like a missile...a really slow missile.

But to your point, I suspect that any of these witnesses never saw an actual supersonic missile in flight. A stinger would cover the 20,000 feet in less than 10 seconds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom