NationStates Jolt Archive

Most will say 9/11, but is that accurate? On July 17, 1996 a 747, TWA 800, traveling from NY to Paris, blew up in the sky and crashed into the Atlantic, killing 230, just south of Long Island. The official explanation for the crash was an explosion in the near-empty middle fuel tank. In spite of hundreds of eyewitness accounts that claimed to see a missle rising from the water and hitting TWA 800. The CIA released a simulation of the fuel tank explanation, saying witnesses were confused by an optical illusion caused by a calm sea. The CIA?? Some theorize that a Naval task force exercise testing a new weapon system may have accidentally shot down TWA 800. Others think that it was a terrorist attack covered up to prevent Clinton's presidential campaign from being derailed. What do you think?

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9707/twa.800/video/
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA800/default.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/hi/TWA800/

Point of interest: An El Al flight, also a 747, took off late and was right behind TWA 800 instead of in front as scheduled. Coincidence?

I think terrorist attacks have been occuring on the U.S mainland since before the KKK was formed.

Most will say 9/11, but is that accurate? On July 17, 1996 a 747, TWA 800, traveling from NY to Paris, blew up in the sky and crashed into the Atlantic, killing 230, just south of Long Island. The official explanation for the crash was an explosion in the near-empty middle fuel tank. In spite of hundreds of eyewitness accounts that claimed to see a missle rising from the water and hitting TWA 800. The CIA released a simulation of the fuel tank explanation, saying witnesses were confused by an optical illusion caused by a calm sea. The CIA?? Some theorize that a Naval task force exercise testing a new weapon system may have accidentally shot down TWA 800. Others think that it was a terrorist attack covered up to prevent Clinton's presidential campaign from being derailed. What do you think?

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9707/twa.800/video/
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA800/default.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/hi/TWA800/

Point of interest: An El Al flight, also a 747, took off late and was right behind TWA 800 instead of in front as scheduled. Coincidence?

If it was a terrorist attack Clinton would have admitted it because it would have helped his popularity, just look at what happened with Bush with 9/11! He didnt deserve it but what can I say? people are dumb. I doubt it was a missle, if it was the plane would have literally blown up not just crash, and they wouldnt be dumb enough to test weapons near an airport.

An El Al flight, also a 747, took off late and was right behind TWA 800 instead of in front as scheduled. Coincidence?


I never heard that before. Do you have any links?

If it was terrorists, someone would be claiming it somewhere but no one did. The UN navy isn't exactly innocent of shooting down civilian airliners by accident either and try to cover up these incidents by blaming something else.

I never heard that before. Do you have any links?

No, sorry, I haven't found any yet. But, I remember that info coming out in the news shortly after the crash. I'll keep googling though.

I doubt it was a missle, if it was the plane would have literally blown up not just crash, and they wouldnt be dumb enough to test weapons near an airport.

It did blow up. Reports are that the weather service radar picked up the pieces as a cloud. Supposedly over a million pieces were recovered.

Explosions on an airlines suggest one of many things

(1) Airline design fault - bad design leading to a situation of a potential explosive effect. These happen but are not normally the cause of airline explosions.
(2) Bomb - A bomb planted on the plane. The main cause is terrorists or other insane people. Very possible but normally planted in luggage. The one you said happened near the fuel tank. Sometimes specific items like aerosol cans explode in luggage.
(3) Missile strike - Normally from the military firing missiles thinking it is a hostile target. Normally rare, but remember the UN navy shooting down an Iranian airliner thinking it was a F14 (in the Persian Gulf)?

My opinion? A stray US missile.

If it was a terrorist attack Clinton would have admitted it because it would have helped his popularity, just look at what happened with Bush with 9/11! He didnt deserve it but what can I say? people are dumb. I doubt it was a missle, if it was the plane would have literally blown up not just crash, and they wouldnt be dumb enough to test weapons near an airport.

On the other hand, and if you knew anything about the airline industry, you would know that all in service types are pulled from duty in the event that there is an unexplained crash.

Not a single 747 was pullled off the line after that crash, indicating that someone knew exactly what caused the crash from the second it happened.

More than that, Clinton was the peacemaker, the last thing that nozzel would do is admit there was an attack upon a US plane.

If it was terrorists, someone would be claiming it somewhere but no one did. The UN navy isn't exactly innocent of shooting down civilian airliners by accident either and try to cover up these incidents by blaming something else.

Several minor terrorist groups claimed responsibility, but they were dismissed. Al Qaeda often does not claim responsibility as in the attack in Spain.

On the other hand, and if you knew anything about the airline industry, you would know that all in service types are pulled from duty in the event that there is an unexplained crash.

Not a single 747 was pullled off the line after that crash, indicating that someone knew exactly what caused the crash from the second it happened.

More than that, Clinton was the peacemaker, the last thing that nozzel would do is admit there was an attack upon a US plane.

Here's an interesting little tidbit.

I was an Electronic Warfare technician in the Navy. Our equipment isprimarily for anti-ship missile defense. But it has other major uses. One of it's uses is for identifying targets by it's radar parametrics.

One day, in class, the subject of that Iranian airliner came up and my instructor told me something that seems pertinent now. He told me that the airliner had an F-14's radar. Now, I won't go into long details, but to sum up: Airliner's radars and jet fighters have radically different radar parametrics. The biggest difference is how they sound. Yes. Our equipment actually lets us hear radars. They sound nothing alike, and no EW would make that mistake even if the equipment did(which is unlikely).

Comon belief is that it was staged. I thought I read once that ther were other signs that it was staged by the Iranians, but It was too long ago for me to remember.

Here's an interesting little tidbit.

I was an Electronic Warfare technician in the Navy. Our equipment isprimarily for anti-ship missile defense. But it has other major uses. One of it's uses is for identifying targets by it's radar parametrics.

One day, in class, the subject of that Iranian airliner came up and my instructor told me something that seems pertinent now. He told me that the airliner had an F-14's radar. Now, I won't go into long details, but to sum up: Airliner's radars and jet fighters have radically different radar parametrics. The biggest difference is how they sound. Yes. Our equipment actually lets us hear radars. They sound nothing alike, and no EW would make that mistake even if the equipment did(which is unlikely).

Comon belief is that it was staged. I thought I read once that ther were other signs that it was staged by the Iranians, but It was too long ago for me to remember.

Maybe Iran was reusing military radars from unusable F14s and putting them in their airliners to save money on buying new ones?

Maybe Iran was reusing military radars from unusable F14s and putting them in their airliners to save money on buying new ones?

Maybe. I'm sure they must've had a hard time maintaining them without quailified technicians.

The tell-tale point to this incident is that the CIA responded. If it were actually a mechanical failure, wouldn't the FAA or the FBI be the ones to respond? Why did our international intelligence agency "explain" the explosion and produce a simulation to discount the witnesses?

The tell-tale point to this incident is that the CIA responded. If it were actually a mechanical failure, wouldn't the FAA or the FBI be the ones to respond? Why did our international intelligence agency "explain" the explosion and produce a simulation to discount the witnesses?

Because terrorism was suspected. Who better to refute it than the (*choke...stifle laugh*) terrorist experts?

Witness accounts

http://flight800.org/intro.html

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA800/exhibits_web.htm

Witness accounts

http://flight800.org/intro.html

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA800/exhibits_web.htm

Hmm, so much for government honesty. Unidentified ship in the area eh? Rising light? ...

I downloaded some of the videos from the link posted at the top, but whenever I try to open then I get a No Disk in Drive error from QuickTime. Anyone else tried to view them?

I think terrorist attacks have been occuring on the U.S mainland since before the KKK was formed.

I agree. :D

If it was a terrorist attack Clinton would have admitted it because it would have helped his popularity, just look at what happened with Bush with 9/11! He didnt deserve it but what can I say? people are dumb. I doubt it was a missle, if it was the plane would have literally blown up not just crash, and they wouldnt be dumb enough to test weapons near an airport.

What won Bush popularity was his response to 9/11, not the attack itself. Clinton's tactic in handling terrorist attacks was to shake his head sadly and to treat them entirely as criminal issues. No arrest=no action. Since Richard Clarke was key in the determination of mechanical failure it's a pretty safe bet the terrorist attack premise was rejected in order to keep Clinton in office.

Clinton's tactic in handling terrorist attacks was to shake his head sadly and to treat them entirely as criminal issues.

And, yet, Clinton has not only the distinction of being the most consistently popular President in US history, but has also become a very popular world figure and elder statesman. I doubt Bush will have any of the same. His momentary popularity directly following 9/11/01 is meaningless.

And, yet, Clinton has not only the distinction of being the most consistently popular President in US history, but has also become a very popular world figure and elder statesman. I doubt Bush will have any of the same. His momentary popularity directly following 9/11/01 is meaningless.

Clinton's popularity is based on his personality plus having the good fortune of being president during the .com boom and overall prosperity. His few attempts at defense were on the whole pitiful and unsuccessful. If he had been given a plate loaded with everything Bush has had to deal with he would have left sad legacy. Clinton got to play Santa Claus and Bush has had to be the Commander in Chief.

Remember this?

http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/2001/11/01/19807.html

Shit does happen. Just a question of how honest one is willing to be. Perhaps the US Navy did not like the prospect of class action lawsuits.

Clinton's popularity is based on his personality plus having the good fortune of being president during the .com boom and overall prosperity. His few attempts at defense were on the whole pitiful and unsuccessful. If he had been given a plate loaded with everything Bush has had to deal with he would have left sad legacy. Clinton got to play Santa Claus and Bush has had to be the Commander in Chief.

Amazing ... if something good happened under Clinton (which happened a lot), it was either luck or Reagan's doing ... but if something good happens under Bush (which hasn't yet, but there's time) then Bush is a solid leader?

Clinton had to deal with an entire Congress who wanted his head on a pike, yet he still commanded the strongest economy this country has ever seen, built the post-Reagan era military into the streamline taut machine it is today (how effective would Bush's dirty little war been without Clinton's military), and held on to the hearts and minds of the people of the United States and the global community. You also seem to be forgetting about Clinton's removal of Milosevic from power - *with* UN approval, I might add.

Bush has created divisiveness, mistrust, iron-fisted pre-emption, a sharp downfall in education, and an overall hatred for the United States not previously known. You can keep him.

Remember this?

http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/2001/11/01/19807.html

Shit does happen. Just a question of how honest one is willing to be. Perhaps the US Navy did not like the prospect of class action lawsuits.

Yep ... I also remember a little incident with a Japanese fishing boat that Bush openly refused to even apologize for.

The 1st terrorist attacks? Try WWII and the bombs set off by Nazi sympthizers. Their court case went to the supreme court.