Sign in to follow this  
Tom Allensworth

Latest TWA800

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Braun,Could you post a list of the arguments you support? I want to understand your side of the story, but I don't have time to read all the articles you are posting. Do you have anything like that?Thanks :-)

Share this post


Link to post

My take is basically the TWA800 investigation and the subsequent finding of cause is a fallacy. I don't know the answer, but many, MANY aviation professionals and observers believe the answer is other than the "official" one concerning the fuel tank.My personal belief is that a missile took down TWA800.For better insight and to form your own opinionhttp://twa800.comhttp://www.flight800.orgBest,bt

Share this post


Link to post

honestly, TWA 800 was brought down by the A/C short. plain and simple. No missle was fired and no jet. Just a matter of coinsidence (sp?) that they happened to be in the water that day.There is STRONG evidence to support the fuel tank explosion, and none to support the missle.thats my take on ithttp://www.avsim.com/posky/images/banners/gary_ban.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Correct. The only people who support the shootdown theory are those who want to discredit the investigators and the US military for personal gain (most likely multi billion USD liability lawsuits).It's no different from the vultures sueing Boeing for making aircraft after their products were used to take out the WTC on 11 Sept. 2001.

Share this post


Link to post

And, do you have independent confirmation from someone who does NOT want to keep the conspiracy theories alive?Or something from the NTSB or FAA directly maybe?You've tried many times before, maybe your account should be deleted for posting too much flamebait...

Share this post


Link to post

"There is STRONG evidence to support the fuel tank explosion, and none to support the missle."This reminds me of one of my favorite Simpsons quotes, by Lionel Hutz, attorney-at-law. "We have plenty of conjecture and heresay. Those are kinds of evidence" :-lolBraun, I found those websites were very disorganized and amateurish. Are they seriously trying to convince me they have a point, or are they just spewing random conspiracy-theories as they feel like it?You may have noticed that most of your posts get no replys and very few views. Maybe you should take notice and cut down on your "updates"

Share this post


Link to post

I heard on the radio the other day that a respected Japanese Accident Investigator has fielded the theroy that TWA 800 could very well have been hit by a meteorite that punched straight through the main fuel tank. It was figured that given the aircraft density in today's skies that the chances of a plane being hit by a meteor are once every thirty years. Improbable but not impossible.Skully

Share this post


Link to post

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson. Its ovbious none of you are in the real airline world, because among pilots and mechanics, this fuel tank therory is the longest standing joke in the industry! It's also obvious you have never read all of the reports,Just like the warren report, you can use the govnerments infomation to shoot down its own position!

Share this post


Link to post

There is NO evidence to promote the fuel tank theory that I can see. Even Boeing disagreed with that finding. Even the GOVERNMENT says it cannot explain HOW it happened, just that it did.What do you base this little bit of "insight" on?Best,bt

Share this post


Link to post

>You've tried many times before, maybe your account should be deleted for posting too much flamebait... Maybe you should get a life?Do I know the cause of TW800's crash? No, nor do you, nor does anyone.With all due respect Jerome, what credentials do you carry that allow you to come to this "enlightened" state of awareness.Are you a Pilot? I am (answer yes or no)Are you an Air Traffic Controller? I am (yes or no)Have you ever been involved in an NTSB investigation? I have. (yes or no)Perhaps your account should be deleted for typing before you think...Cheers,bt

Share this post


Link to post

Did you read anything? Did you digest? Did you investigate? If not, your comments to me mean as little as my updates apparently do to you.Just "what" about the two sites in question:www.flight800.orgwww.twa800.comDo you find amaturish? I'm sure you've done much more..."professional" work?You may have noticed that I'm not posting these topics for replys, only to keep the topic in front of aviators...by the way, are you an aviator? Are you even or have been involved in the aviation world excluding flight simulator?Best,bt

Share this post


Link to post

Correct, that theory was put forward some time ago.It was subsequently taken as a possible cause by everyone except the conspiracy theorists who discredit it "because the meteor was never found". HELLO, your missile was never found either and neither was any ship or other potential launchplatform!The meteor theory is to me the most plausible. A small meteorite (say a centimeter across on impact) would pack enough punch to cause the fueltank to fail and the fuel in it to ignite (much more than needed probably, certainly more than an electrical spark) yet would not leave a hole large enough to be spotted in the wreckage. A detonating missile on the other hand would leave telltale traces behind.The 30 year average sound about right too, might even be a bit conservative (or maybe he took only meteorites large enough to cause this type of accidents and not smaller ones that won't penetrate aircraft skin).

Share this post


Link to post

Braun- I waited overnight before making my response to you. Your disrespectful comments to me and other members of this community truly angered me, and I didn't want to make a fool of myself by saying something stupid (hint, hint).First and foremost, I am entitled to my opinion. Jerome is entitled to his opinion. Gary is entitled to his opinion. You are entitled to your opinion. Because of that, we all have a responsibility to respect those opinions. We don't need to agree with them, but we do have to allow each to have his own opinion. The manner in which you have attacked several people on this post is shocking. You are entitled to defend your opinion and explain it to others, what you are not entitled to do is to belittle and personally attack others for their opinons, as you did.I stated I found the websites "amateurish." You then decided to attack me for not knowing websites, and asking if I could do better. I have been designing webpages since I was in grade 7, using Notepad to make basic HTML for text based browsers. Since then, I have continued to learn about webdesign, to the point where I am now experienced in Java, Perl and CGI, Flash (and more recently Director), and am venturing into ASP. I am also an experienced graphics designer, and work for the marketing department at GE. I know an amateurish website when I see it.I don't know if you have secondary schooling, but at University, we are taught that internet pages are a danger-zone for reference purposes. Unlike being published in a journal or trade magazine, or even publishing a thesis, internet sites have no 1) peer review or 2) regulatory methods. What this means is that I or anyone else can post a website saying whatever and not proving it. Therefore, I take all "websites spouting the truth" with a huge grain of salt. So should you.But back to the point. Welcome to the Avsim Community. It's a place to share ideas and discuss topics. It's not a place for you to post an idea, and then ruthlessly attack anyone who dares disagree with it. I don't like your theories, Jerome doesn't, and neither does Gary. Does that mean you are welcome to sit behind the safety of your computer screen, rudely retorting to everyone? No. If you feel that this is a place where you can can, maybe you shouldn't let the door hit you on the way out.

Share this post


Link to post

Thirty years from now this debate will still be raging.Before I continue I should point out that what I "know" about the loss of TWA800 is what has been dished out in the press (junk). So I'll not stand behind particular conclusion.What bothers me about the missile theory, and an issue I've not seen addressed anywhere, is the logistics of a conspiracy. The missile theory has it's foundation in the development and prolongation of a complicated conspiracy. This is not easy. There would have to be dozens, if not scores, of witnesses aboard the launching Navy ship who would know about the mistake. How come none of them has come forth? Clearly, there would be great noteriety and financial gain for the witness who could provide proof. Yet not one conspirator has come forward. A conspiracy is a very fragile thing (just ask Bill Clinton), and at some point in time is destined to fail. A successful conspiracy requires that all participants be liars, manipulators, and emotionally dishonest by nature. Is everybody who was aboard the suspect vessel of such low moral value?It takes only one person of conscience to topple a conspiracy. I simply find it hard to believe this hasn't happened yet.Just my $.02 worth,

Share this post


Link to post

Mike...surely you must be joking, "...then ruthlessly attack anyone who dares disagree with it"My comments were directed to yours, not you. If you can

Share this post


Link to post

The problem here is that too many people believe everything that they're told. I've said it before, and I'm sure that I will have cause to say it again.My personal opinion is that a missile destroyed TWA800. If it was fuel vapour igniting in the centre fuel tank, then why hasn't anything been done about it ? Why haven't all Boeing 747's been grounded until this (obviously serious) problem has been corrected ? Yes, I know what you're all thinking. There are hundreds of 747's flying all over the world, and grounding them all would seriously affect the airline industry. Right, so flight safety doesn't matter then. I'm glad that we've got that one out of the way.Or maybe it has something to do with the possibility that the centre fuel tank had nothing to do with the tragedy. After all, why ground a plane when there is nothing wrong with it ? Why seek the statements of multiple witnesses to the event when you already "know" what happened ?Come on guys, let's have a bit more of an open mind.Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post

SoarPics- you said exactly what I was going to. Right on!Braun- I think it's time to turn off the computer, open that door, and get out in the real world. I am honestly concerned for you when all your time is consumed by this theory. It is not healthy for someone to be so utterly obsessed with it.Please, for the love of god, don't respond to this post any more, and come out into society with the rest of us. I know it will be scary to turn off that computer, and to interact with living humans, but it's worth the effort.If you choose to pursue this topic to the death, however, happy trails to you. I'll just have to join the 100's of others who simply ignore your posts.Good day, sir.

Share this post


Link to post

>"My personal opinion is that a missile destroyed TWA800. If >it was fuel vapour igniting in the centre fuel tank, then >why hasn't anything been done about it"Search the FAA website for AD 99-03-04

Share this post


Link to post

My evidence is simply this, There are no signs of an explosion from the outside of the airframe. The explosion is centered on the Number 1 center fuel tank exploding OUTWARD. The evidence leads to this theory.Now te missle what do you have? A few people saw what looked like a missle streaming into the sky? NOT people also see Elvis in Memphis but we all know its a lie.Thats my theory...I can debate all day about it lolhttp://www.avsim.com/posky/images/banners/gary_ban.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Actually more than 2 cents IMHO. That is exactly what has bothered me about the missle theory (to the point that I personally discount it). The gover't just can't keep that kind of SNAFU under wraps. They never have been. They're is a big difference BTW between keeping legit military secerts (i.e.: Manhatten Project) and trying to maintain a coverup.Good comments from SoarPics. :)Dee WaldronHistoric Jetliners Group(Retired A&P Mechanic, IA and pilot)

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is heading south real quick. So, I am going to lock it and leave it at that. But before I do, I have my own thoughts on the subject, and because I can, I will have the last word. :)Braun, I am responsible for a world of stuff that you cannot even begin to imagine when it comes to things like infrared, remote detection, ad nauseam. Trust me on this one.... Were TWA800 to have been blown out of the air by a Stinger or similar weapon, the whole world would have known about it the day after. Having also worked on the survey of debris fields associated with KAL007, the two Air India incidents, Challenger, Titanic, and a whole host of other incidents too small to have escaped most folk's notice, I can tell you with 100% confidence that a debris field and its "spread" provides absolutely no bearing on what happened thousands of feet above.Having my fundamental technical education in radars, and knowing what I do about anomolies, ghosts (false echos), multipath, bending and a whole host of other factors that effect radar performance, I can also say that it is not the definitive 'last' source for accurate data.Finally, eye-witnesses are notoriously inaccurate. Ask any police officer. Could I be wrong? Sure. And let's leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this