I was going to ask the same thing. Looking forward to the answer.

I did find the earlier post that sort of re-started this thread pretty funny. I loved the no warhead, just enough fuel (same as jet fuel) to reach target, camera controlled weapon that hit the engine. Impossible to detect (other than the giant hole in the side of the engine with the edges bent inward )

This stuff is gold, Jerry, gold!

 

That's rich. I flew them. You ain't got no cred's better then a mechanic who worked on em for 10+ years, in fact, you got less.

 

We all saw the required ADs for the fuel tanks, don't recall any missile ADs.
Perhaps you could point us to the missile ADs and strengthen your credibility.

 

What you see in most conspiracy theories is that the real purpose of the theory is all about and based on proving an entity or agency (usually a U.S. Federal Government agency) is behind or involved in an event. The theory buffs are not really concerned about the event itself or what caused the event (proofed by the usual and predictable wild ramblings put forth). They consistently use the event itself as nothing more than a prop to ultimately keep their proverbial theory treadmill going (has to be caused by the U.S. government or aliens, usual examples). They like to offer theories on all kinds of events across many spectrum's as the process tends to consume them. They don’t just espouse one theory just like you don’t do just one potato chip. It’s always very easy to throw forth wild theories and rambling thoughts when you do not have to back them up with related knowledge, facts, science, and you have an overriding agenda to tie everything to a specific entity or government agency as the cause.

 

Of course it's easy to put other theories out there when the G-men selectively put out ONLY what they want you to be informed about. Vetting eye witnesses that back their story, discounting the one's that don't. What a joke if you believe that they are the guardians of truth and justice. You think Project Blue Book was 100% truth? It's endless.

 

Not to mention industry would fight unsubstantiated ADs tooth and nail, suing the FAA and government organizations is standard protocol when that happens.

 

At the time of the accident a Navy P-3 Orion was overhead the accident aircraft at 20,000 feet MSL but with the transponder off. When asked by initial FBI agents why the transponder was off they were told it had been out of service for weeks. I find it hard to believe a P-3 pilot would accept an aircraft to go flying around in Boston and New York Center airspace with an inoperative transponder. I am just wondering if turning it off was part of the "classified" exercise with the submarines also in the immediate area. Not that it had anything to do with the accident.

 

It was Colonel Mustard, in the parlor, with the candlestick.

I dare anyone to prove it wasn't.

 

I went flying just two days ago in Class C airspace without a transponder, but then again, I'm part of the government conspiracy

 

The CIA video was an attempt to rationalize the dozens of credible eyewitness accounts that saw streaks going up to TWA 800. In the CIA video the explosion in the center fuel tank blows the nose and first class section off, the aircraft is aflame, and then climbs very steeply 4,000 feet before nosing over and crashing. The aircraft climbing steeply while on fire is what the witnesses saw, not missile trails, according to the CIA. The narrator specifically says they were no missiles and it is also in big black letters for anyone who may have a lingering doubt. Everyone from a high-school kid who builds model airplanes to Boeing called it an impossible farce. So why was the CIA involved at all and how could they be so stupid?