JohnnyG

9-11 truthers? I've personally known lots of people that pulled airliner parts and luggage from the Pentagon. This firsthand knowledge isn't good enough for them.

mike734

Our chemtrails system was deferred today.

block30

Just got this from Flying Magazine (in my email).................


Why the 'TWA Flight 800' Documentary Is Wrong
After seeing the film "TWA Flight 800" — set to air this month on the Epix cable channel — we debunk the conspiracies.
By Stephen Pope / Published: Jul 03, 2013

Screenshot from the documentary "TWA Flight 800"
Enlarge Photo
I've watched “TWA Flight 800” — the much-hyped Epix original documentary that purports to present “new” evidence proving that a missile attack brought down the Paris-bound Boeing 747 over the Atlantic 17 years ago this month. Yesterday I interviewed Hank Hughes, the former NTSB investigator who, the filmmakers say, is “breaking his silence” to blow the whistle on a vast government cover up. Here is why the film and Hughes are wrong.

I'll try to keep the spoilers to a minimum, but suffice it to say there’s really nothing new in the film — although the filmmakers go to great lengths to make it seem that way. The biggest surprise in the documentary is the claim that not one but three missiles downed TWA Flight 800. According to the theory, two missiles rose from the ocean while a third was fired from Long Island’s Patchogue Bay.

The supposed “smoking gun” that proves the missile theory is a tiny blip of primary radar data that the filmmakers say shows debris blasting from the 747 at a speed in excess of Mach 4 — far faster than would be possible if an explosion of the center fuel tank alone caused the airplane to break apart. What’s strange about this blockbuster claim is that the filmmakers spend just three and a half minutes of the hour and a half film discussing the suspicious radar signature. If this truly was the hard evidence that proved the theory that a missile (or three missiles, as they say) downed TWA Flight 800, shouldn’t this facet of the story have been featured more prominently?

Instead, much of the film focuses on the stories of eyewitnesses, who recall seeing something that looked like a flare or "cheap fireworks" streaking through the sky toward TWA Flight 800 just before it exploded. This is apparently how the filmmakers arrive at the conclusion that three missiles brought down the 747. There were so many different versions of what people saw, from so many vantage points, that a lone-missile theory couldn’t possibly explain the inconsistencies. So there must have been multiple missiles.

Another central claim in the film is a suspicious “splatter pattern” on top of the center fuel tank that tested positive for nitrates. This material was never tested again after originally being discovered by someone at NASA. The sinister suggestion is that shadowy government agents coated the center fuel tank in high explosives before the flight departed to ensure it would blow apart when the missiles reached their target.

For the record, I don't think the people who made this documentary are seeking to make a quick dollar or doing it just for the publicity. Tom Stalcup, a physicist who has become obsessed with proving the TWA Flight 800 missile theory, is the film’s primary narrator and one of the producers. His motives seem noble; he believes the conspiracy theory. But there are so many holes in the documentary that it’s just too easy to dismiss. After it airs on July 17, people who watch it at home will be left with more questions than answers.

I know I was. So I called Hank Hughes yesterday afternoon to ask him about the film’s inconsistencies. The first question I asked him was how it's possible that three missiles took down TWA Flight 800 and yet not a single fragment of missile was ever recovered. He answered that the FBI was in charge of the recovery of the wreckage and must have removed the missile fragments if any were found. I find this explanation extremely hard to swallow. An FBI agent isn’t going to know whether he’s looking at mangled missile parts or Boeing 747 parts with enough certainty to gather and remove every last piece. There was also no direct damage to the 747 that would indicate multiple missile hits. For this Hughes had an answer at the ready: They were "proximity fuse missiles," designed to explode near the airplane, not shoot through it.

Next I asked him about the radar data and why it was glossed over in the documentary. He didn’t have a good answer for that one either, although he reiterated that the real smoking gun is the "totality" of the evidence: the eyewitness accounts, the “splatter pattern,” the radar data, the fact that the FBI agents who were involved in the parallel criminal investigation didn’t seem like nice guys, and on and on.

That’s what always bothers me about conspiracy theories like this one. The people behind them present so much “evidence” that at the end of the day they can throw up their hands and say it just has to be true. But to believe everything the TWA Flight 800 documentary claims, you would have to believe every statement from every Long Island housewife who thought she saw something streaking through the sky; you’d have to believe that multiple missiles were fired from separate locations and then all of the evidence was successfully suppressed; you’d have to believe that government agents placed explosives on the top of the center fuel tank at some point before the airplane took off; and you’d have to believe that dozens of NTSB investigators, FBI agents, the CIA and others were involved in covering it up.

Or you could pick up the NTSB’s 400-page final accident report and read it. Then you’d know what really happened to TWA Flight 800.


Read more at Why the 'TWA Flight 800' Documentary Is Wrong | Flying Magazine

USMCFLYR

3 missiles hit the airplane at 13,500 and climbing (2 from the sea and a 3rd from a bay on Long Island)- MANPADS mind you unless we have multiple ships with armed Sea Sparrows lurking about - AT THE SAME TIME?
Would someone with a military background - and especially an expertise in Air Defense (cue JamesNoBrakes) like to explain exactly how that feat was timed to perfection?
Just use some UNclassified max altitudes and ranges of different MANPADS and sea launched surface to air systems and get back with me
(Oh - and like others have said - Please EVERYONE - don't speak about what you just saw tonight - I know that having unrehearsed live missile firings at night with no briefings is a bit unusual - - - but 'can I get your attention over here and please stare into this zappy thingy' [think Men in Black scene]

Amazing.

JamesNoBrakes

I can't explain that.

savall

Wow, I could entertain the theory that one missile was accidentally shot from a Navy ship doing practices, that's plausible enough; BUT, three missiles ?! The government coated the plane to ensure it would explode ?! *** was their "motive" ? I think I'm going to avoid this horse**** documentary.

DC8DRIVER

You would think that spooks cleaver enough to coat the center fuel tank with explosive material would have just stuck a bomb in there while they were at it and not try to coordinate the firing of secret three missiles to bring the plane down.

Spooks just aren't what they used to be i guess ...

And remind me what the motive was ...

My theory is that the pilots were blinded by an ailen transporter ray and were in the process of coating the cockpit windows with the foil from their hats when they accidentally ran into a black helicopter that was beaming pornography into the brains of east coast liberals who's minds had been softened by all the chemtrailing drugs that we are all spraying all over the country.

THAT'S my story and I'm sticking with it.

8

ATCsaidDoWhat

You broke your vow of secrecy...you will now be assimilated.

brianb

That was some pretty damn good flying on the part of a first time Boeing Pilot. Let's see ALL the security videos, shall we?

JamesNoBrakes

Is it harder to crash, or land safely?