New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[Monza]

Originally Posted by JLord

A guy was on Coast to Coast yesterday talking about this film. He was not the maker but has worked with the maker and had seen the film. I don't remember his name off hand.

He said the film does not speculate as to who destroyed the plane but it conclusively proves that it was caused by an "outside explosion" and that other objects converged with the plane at the time of the explosion. It stops short of saying what caused it but leaves that open to the viewer. According to this guy although it isn't said in the movie, the viewer is left to speculate that the most likely explanation is that a US drone got out of control and then was shot at by the US navy. The missile, the drone, and the airplane all collided at the same time causing the explosion and crash.

I'm not exactly sure how the viewer could get this impression without it being explicitly said, but he was adament that the film sticks only to the known facts, which prove that the plane was taken down by an outside explosion, not a mechanical failure.

Is this really what the movie suggests?! This is an even more unlikely scenario than a terrorist-fired SAM or a wayward Navy missile. With this new theory, it seems to suggest that if there was no missile involved, flight 800 would still have been downed by a mid-air collision with a drone.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Monza

Is this really what the movie suggests?! This is an even more unlikely scenario than a terrorist-fired SAM or a wayward Navy missile. With this new theory, it seems to suggest that if there was no missile involved, flight 800 would still have been downed by a mid-air collision with a drone.

Where would the drone have come from? There is no base around there that would have been a launch point.

[HotRodDeluxe]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

So you believe it was a missile? That seems unlikely to me. The U.S. Air Force would hardly shoot at a passenger jet as a kind or horror mistake or as an act of deliberate insanity. And I doubt terrorists in the U.S. have access to surface-to-air missiles.

No, I don't believe that.

Quote:

Or do you believe the initial official story? Then why do experts want a reinvestigation? Something doesn't compute with that either.

The so-called 'official story' seems the most likely, and as to your 'experts' wanting a reinvestigation, I'm trying to ascertain what level of expertise these people possess. I suspect the motivation is purely financial.

Quote:

On the other hand, if the government covered it up to PROTECT the U.S. citizens, then that makes more sense. It's even similar to the NSA snooping scandal, where Obama says something like: Look, we do this for the protection of our citizens.

But that doesn't make any sense either, for investigations in the past have made public causes such as terrorist attacks.

[SUSpilot]

Originally Posted by thedopefishlives

I'm going to ask this because I do not have sufficient familiarity with TWA 800 to know, but this supposed "clean break", did it happen to occur along a joint in the airframe? To my mind, it's possible that the explosion in the CWT may not have literally blown the aircraft apart, but was still strong enough to cause a stress-related separation in a natural fault in the airframe.

Yes. Although I'm not an expert, I recall that the weakest point (or, more precisely, the least strong part of a very robust airframe) is the ovoid shaped frame where the 747's hump starts (or ends, depending on how you look at it). If the fuselage is going to break, that's where it will happen, because of the stresses on an irregular shape. Just like the overpressure from the Lockerbie bomb, the explosion on the TWA aircraft broke off the nose.

[Alareth]

Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe

Er... it was a rhetorical question and your hypothesis is contrary to what actually happens in the real world.

Every single thing Anders has ever posted runs contrary to what happens in the real world.

[Alareth]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

The U.S. Air Force would hardly shoot at a passenger jet as a kind or horror mistake or as an act of deliberate insanity.

The Air Force has never been implicated in any version of any fight 800 conspiracies. It's always been the Navy accused of shooting it down in CT land.

[matt.tansy]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Where would the drone have come from? There is no base around there that would have been a launch point.

Some drones have ranges of over a thousand miles.

A big question is if it was a missile where did this missile come from? There were numerous witnesses on boats and on the beach that didn't report seeing any naval vessels in the area. Submarines can't fire surface to air missiles. The only option left is an air launched missile but that doesn't jibe with any eyewitness reports.



Then there is the location of the rip. The gap between seating sections is also where the cabin doors are located. This picture of the reconstructed section shows the aircraft broke in half about 4 windows aft of the cabin door. If it was a missile with a continuous rod warhead that shot down the aircraft then some of the passengers' bodies would shows signs of it.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe

But that doesn't make any sense either, for investigations in the past have made public causes such as terrorist attacks.

Mainstream media only trumpets false flag attacks basically. I don't claim that the government staged the Boston bombings or the 9/11 attacks, but I do claim that they were not done by the usual terrorists. More like some shadow cabal operating behind the public scene.

Giving a terrorist event media exposure is a huge success for the terrorists. That's worth billions of dollars in 'marketing'. One simply does not give real terrorists such massive gift, for it would not only tremendously fuel their cause but also encourage other terrorist organizations to pop up like mushrooms all over the place.

[Garrison]

The part about a drone going out of control; well that has happened on occasion. The part where they just start taking pot shots at it with missiles and fail to alert anyone of the hazard first; plain ridiculous.

[LaurelHS]

Originally Posted by Alareth

The Air Force has never been implicated in any version of any fight 800 conspiracies. It's always been the Navy accused of shooting it down in CT land.

Which obviously means that the Air Force was behind it and that they started the Navy conspiracy theories to draw attention away from themselves.

[Anders Lindman]

I checked the 'fine print' and found:

"For the purposes of this report, the term “bomb” means an explosive device designed to release destructive material at high velocity upon detonation, but does not include an explosive device designed only to set off a small charge of sufficient strength to penetrate the fuel tank and ignite explosive vapors." -- Aircraft Accident Report, National Transportation Safety Board (TWA 800, footnote 127) -- http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf

So in theory it could have been a small bomb that ignited the jet fuel. But how probable is it that a bomb in the luggage area happens to be located so that it can ignite the fuel? Although several such bombs would have a higher chance of causing such ignition.

[pteridine]

Originally Posted by matt.tansy

Submarines can't fire surface to air missiles.

How sure are you of that?

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by matt.tansy

Some drones have ranges of over a thousand miles.

A big question is if it was a missile where did this missile come from? There were numerous witnesses on boats and on the beach that didn't report seeing any naval vessels in the area. Submarines can't fire surface to air missiles. The only option left is an air launched missile but that doesn't jibe with any eyewitness reports.

http://i.imgur.com/k5iVqsp.png

Then there is the location of the rip. The gap between seating sections is also where the cabin doors are located. This picture of the reconstructed section shows the aircraft broke in half about 4 windows aft of the cabin door. If it was a missile with a continuous rod warhead that shot down the aircraft then some of the passengers' bodies would shows signs of it.

http://i.imgur.com/pvqgiZF.jpg

I was thinking a target drone, there is no nearby range facility where the Navy vessel would have been targeting the drone. Otherwise, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that the vessel would fire at it.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by pteridine

How sure are you of that?

They didn't at the time of the accident, in the US. The SSGN program kicked off in 2002.

ETA: and the SSGN does not fire SAMs. No Fire Control guidance...

[matt.tansy]

Originally Posted by pteridine

How sure are you of that?

After 20 years in the US submarine service, I am absolutely sure.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by matt.tansy

After 20 years in the US submarine service, I am absolutely sure.

Yeah, like anyone would believe a bubblehead.

[matt.tansy]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

I was thinking a target drone, there is no nearby range facility where the Navy vessel would have been targeting the drone. Otherwise, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that the vessel would fire at it.

Target drones is what I was referring to. There are some smaller target drones that can be launched from ships.

But no US Navy ship conducts missile firings in the Narragansett Bay Operating Areas. It is not allocated for missile firing and has no procedures for doing it. US Navy surface ships rarely visit the NBOAs. In my 10 years at Groton I can recall two surface ships being in the area. One made a port call in New London and the other was transiting through the area enroute from Portsmouth to Norfolk. Missile exercises are conducted down by the Virginia Capes Operating Areas or the Tongue of the Ocean in the Bahamas.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by matt.tansy

Target drones is what I was referring to. There are some smaller target drones that can be launched from ships.

But no US Navy ship conducts missile firings in the Narragansett Bay Operating Areas. It is not allocated for missile firing and has no procedures for doing it. US Navy surface ships rarely visit the NBOAs. In my 10 years at Groton I can recall two surface ships being in the area. One made a port call in New London and the other was transiting through the area enroute from Portsmouth to Norfolk. Missile exercises are conducted down by the Virginia Capes Operating Areas or the Tongue of the Ocean in the Bahamas.

I was on an FFG that pulled into Bristol for the 4th celebration one year. There also YPs from the Academy, maybe if they taught mids to fire stingers. Just as likely as the other theories.

ETA: as far as a ship launched drone, I didn't think they would be using them back then (1996), especially for targeting.

[SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally Posted by jadebox

Concerning "The petitioners contend that the testimony of more than 200 witnesses who reported seeing streaks of light headed toward the plane should be reconsidered" ....

I don't understand why so many eye witnesses came to the conclusion that they saw a missile. A missile wouldn't leave a streak of light in a night sky.

Long-exposure photographs display a streak, but I've watched lots of night rockets launches and, from any distance, all you see with the naked eye is a moving dot (if anything).

And surely, at least in retrospect, it should be obvious that what the eyewitnesses described doesn't fit the missile theory.

-- Roger

I hear what you're saying. Respectfully, you're wrong. Who am I to make such a judgement? Ex military. No, that doesn't make me an expert of all things military. However, I've seen more than a few tracers and other ordinance fired. It's entirely reasonable for those not entirely familiar with those kinds of things to refer to a tracer as a streak of light. Technically, as we all know, it's not. To a lay person, that's exactly how they describe that kind of thing; as a 'streak of light'.

Surface to Air missiles (SAMs) do leave a "streak" behind them. It's nothing more than the exhaust/combustion from the on board engine. My point is, to a lay person, it's entirely reasonable for them to explain it as a streak of light.

Respectfully,
SAP

ETA: you're point about nothing more than a point of light is well received. I concur. Please consider that SAMs are very, very fast. They have to be in order to intercept fast moving aircraft. You're point isn't lost on me. I'm making a special pleading because, in this case, it applies. Missiles aren't generic. The application *does* make a difference. That is a Javelin moves slower than a ICBM (at first), which moves slower than a Patriot, which moves slower than a SAM, etc.

[Orphia Nay]

Are there two conspiracy theory movies about TWA800 out at the moment?

From Ben Radford:

http://news.discovery.com/human/psyc...mkcpgn=rssnws1

Quote:

In the case of the TWA Flight 800, we can easily follow the money back to Kristina Borjesson, the writer and director of an upcoming documentary film on the incident. Borjesson’s publicity team has done their job drumming up a “controversy” and rehashing long-discredited conspiracy theories to promote her upcoming film.

Follow the money indeed.

I don't think this is the movie mentioned in the OP.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by SlightlyAbovePar

Surface to Air missiles (SAMs) do leave a "streak" behind them.

That would be like a chemtrail I take it. And those last very long time in the sky (even if they are contrails)! So shouldn't the missile trail have been visible even minutes after the plane went down?

ETA: I guess depending on fuel used and weather conditions etc, the missile "chemtrail" would differ a lot in visibility. Anyway here is an example from rather big missiles:

Amazing SAM S-300 Missiles Intercepting Targets -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm-px9nbnVs

[Dcdrac]

anders why do you not try to KNOW instead of just GUESS

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

anders why do you not try to KNOW instead of just GUESS

Because there may be missiles that don't leave much of a smoke/condensation trail. I don't know.

[Dcdrac]

then find out, learn how it works and not from youtbue or just the internet go and readd a book

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

then find out, learn how it works and not from youtbue or just the internet go and readd a book

Going directly to the Web is much faster than reading whole books and stuff. And dare I say oftentimes even a less discombobulated route to knowledge.

[phunk]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Going directly to the Web is much faster than reading whole books and stuff. And dare I say oftentimes even a less discombobulated route to knowledge.

Knowledge acquired that way will be very shallow, and you will not have the foundation needed to know when you're being misled.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by phunk

Knowledge acquired that way will be very shallow, and you will not have the foundation needed to know when you're being misled.

But the claims can be examined by simple reasoning. For example, did a missile really hit the plane? I don't know but it seems unlikely to me. And then the next question is: why are experts demanding a reinvestigation? Maybe as a part of a psyop of some kind. Things like this you can hardly find in any books or in universities etc.

[Anders Lindman]

Hey! It's probably just a dress rehearsal or pilot project more like it for some other real reinvestigation to come. Because: missile? Not likely. Bomb? Not likely. Mechanical failure? More likely.

So, as I see it, there is no reason for the experts to demand a reinvestigation unless there is some other reason behind it.

[Corsair 115]

Perhaps one of these missile proponents can explain why the human remains recovered and painstakingly analyzed do not support the missile theory.

[jadebox]

Originally Posted by SlightlyAbovePar

I hear what you're saying. Respectfully, you're wrong.

No, I'm certain I'm right.

Quote:

Who am I to make such a judgement? Ex military. No, that doesn't make me an expert of all things military. However, I've seen more than a few tracers and other ordinance fired.

The hypothetical missile would not have been a tracer and it certainly wasn't an "authoritative decree or direction." :-)

Anti-aircraft missiles are not designed to leave trails of light in the night sky. They usually are designed to reduce the exhaust trail to make themselves less visible.

I've seen dozens of missile tests and thousands of rockets launched - including many at night. Even the Space Shuttle traveling more than 12000mph with its huge main engines firing didn't appear as a streak in the sky at night - just a dot.

Quote:

It's entirely reasonable for those not entirely familiar with those kinds of
things to refer to a tracer as a streak of light. Technically, as we all know, it's not. To a lay person, that's exactly how they describe that kind of thing; as a 'streak of light'.

Surface to Air missiles (SAMs) do leave a "streak" behind them. It's nothing more than the exhaust/combustion from the on board engine. My point is, to a lay person, it's entirely reasonable for them to explain it as a streak of light.

The accident happened at night. The observers would not have observed the exhaust trail as a streak of light. There would have been nothing to illuminate it. At most they would have just seen a dot of light.

Quote:

ETA: you're point about nothing more than a point of light is well received. I concur. Please consider that SAMs are very, very fast. They have to be in order to intercept fast moving aircraft. You're point isn't lost on me. I'm making a special pleading because, in this case, it applies. Missiles aren't generic. The application *does* make a difference. That is a Javelin moves slower than a ICBM (at first), which moves slower than a Patriot, which moves slower than a SAM, etc.

Nope, at the distance of the observers it would not have been perceived as a streak of light as described by the witnesses. They reported seeing a streak of light like the ones seen in long-exposures of rocket launches, not the dot they would have seen if it really was a rocket.

-- Roger

[Anders Lindman]

I still think mechanical failure happened, but I found this interesting description:

From about 14:30 in the video an expert shows the effect of something called a rod warhead missile or something like that:

Best Evidence: TWA Flight 800 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwWzRFsrqAE

And the slicing effect from the warhead missile he described is very similar to the CIA reconstruction animation from 07:40.

[Corsair 115]

And the findings from the examination of the human remains recovered from the flight continues to be ignored...

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

And the findings from the examination of the human remains recovered from the flight continues to be ignored...

Passengers sitting in the slice zone should have been pulverized basically: http://www.brasscheck.com/OKBOMB/controd2.jpg

http://www.okieboat.com/Copyright%20...201024%20C.jpg

If some of the bodies are still missing, then that could indicate such missile.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Passengers sitting in the slice zone should have been pulverized basically: http://www.brasscheck.com/OKBOMB/controd2.jpg

http://www.okieboat.com/Copyright%20...201024%20C.jpg

If some of the bodies are still missing, then that could indicate such missile.

Would they not also have foreign objects or damage to their body that is only consistent with expanding control rod debris?

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Would they not also have foreign objects or damage to their body that is only consistent with expanding control rod debris?

It looks like such missile will cause a narrow slice, so I was thinking that passengers sitting in the slice radius along with seats and other material would essentially have been vaporized. And that the rest of the passengers wouldn't show hardly any such damage.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

It looks like such missile will cause a narrow slice, so I was thinking that passengers sitting in the slice radius along with seats and other material would essentially have been vaporized. And that the rest of the passengers wouldn't show hardly any such damage.

The expanding rod does not vaporize anything.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

The expanding rod does not vaporize anything.

But check out how the missile expert described the blast radius: http://www.brasscheck.com/OKBOMB/controd2.jpg

That's like chopping a sausage in two with a sharp knife. Like a circular shape charge. Everything in that narrow slice would have been utterly shattered. And the CIA reconstruction animation shows something very similar, with the front of the plane like cleanly chopped off, just the way the missile expert described it.

[Anders Lindman]

Here is another documentary:

Seconds From Disaster - S02E10 - TWA 800 (TWA Flight 800) (The Last Flight of TWA 800).avi -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB1dUfVfoG4

It also shows that it was a mechanical failure with an electric spark. Seems more probable than a missile, because how could even a rod warhead missile cause such a perpendicular cut in the fuselage? For that to happen the missile must have flown in exactly the same direction as the plane. Unless those missiles are designed to automatically do so, the likelihood for that must be very slim.

It will be interesting to watch the new documentary about the TWA 800.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Passengers sitting in the slice zone should have been pulverized basically: http://www.brasscheck.com/OKBOMB/controd2.jpg

Now please show the medical forensic evidence of that in the human remains. Because the very knowledgeable and skilled folks who did the examinations found that the injuries recorded on the remains were not consistent with a missile strike.

You can float as many trial balloons as you wish. We are still left with the recorded evidence of the forensic examinations. We are still left with the story told by the human remains, and that story is NOT one of a missile.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

It looks like such missile will cause a narrow slice, so I was thinking that passengers sitting in the slice radius along with seats and other material would essentially have been vaporized. And that the rest of the passengers wouldn't show hardly any such damage.

I'm sorry, which medical expertise do you have that allows you to make that statement?

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Now please show the medical forensic evidence of that in the human remains. Because the very knowledgeable and skilled folks who did the examinations found that the injuries recorded on the remains were not consistent with a missile strike.

You can float as many trial balloons as you wish. We are still left with the recorded evidence of the forensic examinations. We are still left with the story told by the human remains, and that story is NOT one of a missile.





I'm sorry, which medical expertise do you have that allows you to make that statement?

It's true that they didn't find any damage showing a missile blast. The slice blast was something a missile expert talked about in one of the documentaries. I'm not convinced however, as I wrote in my previous post, unless those rod warhead missiles automatically align their flight exactly in the same direction as the target. I haven't checked that yet but it seems unlikely that missiles would do that, because they can come in from all kinds of directions.

So my guess at the moment is that it was an electric spark. Unless the official reports lie! But for that I need more evidence to be convinced. Here is a conspiracy documentary about the event:

Conspiracy?: TWA Flight 800 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44uu4zWQEEs