A huge aviation disaster is already by definition an extremely rare event. Claiming that because the failure mode hasn't happened a bunch of times in the past that it couldn't have happened here isn't a valid argument. Most catastrophic mechanical failures that cause aircraft to crash aren't common. This is the same problem you see with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists - a building has never fallen down due to being hit by airliners before, therefore controlled demolition must have brought down the WTC towers. How many times exactly in the past have 767's full of fuel doing 400+ knots hit skyscrapers? Exactly zero before that day - there is no valid body of evidence with which to compare it to and it's terrible logic.

 

The number of difficult questions that would have to be satisfactorily answered for these kinds of events to be massive conspiracies is huge and borders on the absurd. The government could not keep real indisputable evidence of a highly secret surveillance program from becoming public earlier this month. You really think that they somehow did manage to keep real hard evidence of things like a missile shootdown of an airliner over the US secret? That only questionable "evidence" brought forth by questionable people under questionable motives 17 years after the fact is all you'd get? Not one person on the Navy ship that supposedly fired this missile had a conscience? I find all these things (and a ton of others I'm not going to type out) extremely hard to believe - much moreso than believing that a rare sequence of events stemming from our imperfect engineering and maintenance prowess occurred and exploded the center fuel tank. Aviation history is chock full of these type of incidents where yes, a highly improbable chain of systems events did in fact lead to a disaster.

 

The human mind naturally tries to find intent and purposeful causation for seemingly unbelievable events - it's well documented psychology. It doesn't however mean that the intent actually exists just because some people feel it must.

Very well put, these conspiracy theories always seem to overlook the obvious and in it's place fill minds w/ ideas which always play off something else, in this case, gov. mistrust. Aircraft accidents are always complicated, always involve a chain of events where all pieces must fit in order for the accident to happen. This event does not meet the criteria as put forth by this re-investigation. For those who are not experts in this field and I say experts, cannot be taken seriously by those who have the knowledge. Being a pilot does not make you an expert anymore then a family doctor can claim to be a heart surgeon when they have never had the training or performed such an  operation. Don't let emotions rule what should be a closed case.

It all boils down to what you believe is credible, In my eyes,our government has no credibility,And who's main mission is to protect Bankers and corporations.

 

The US Navy admitted to accidentally shooting down an Iranian airliner that they somehow mistook for an F-14, I doubt that they would be able to keep Flt 800 secret for long and in one documentary they referenced as to how the metal near the explosion is bent outwards which suggests that the explosion has to be internally. 

It all boils down to what you believe is credible, In my eyes,our government has no credibility,And who's main mission is to protect Bankers and corporations.

 

 

There's the problem right there... believing...  I understand your cynicism, but the corporations of doubt and conspiracy make allot of bank themselves.

Just a thought that I have on the Flight 800 issue. If you all will recall there is ALWAYS the added comment by the "Authorities", that there is "no evidence of explosive residue". If the military exercises in that area were at fault there would be no "residue". As they use inert warheads on the exercise missles. Just a "dummy" missle hitting an aircraft at say 1000mph would be more than enough to cause the type of structural failure seen in that 747.

Just a thought that I have on the Flight 800 issue. If you all will recall there is ALWAYS the added comment by the "Authorities", that there is "no evidence of explosive residue". If the military exercises in that area were at fault there would be no "residue". As they use inert warheads on the exercise missles. Just a "dummy" missle hitting an aircraft at say 1000mph would be more than enough to cause the type of structural failure seen in that 747.

 

Depends on the missile's size but other airplane have been know to be struck and flown back to base, a few Vietnamese Migs have been struck by sidewinders that failed to explode and the pilots managed to nurse their plane back (at least one missile was dislodged from a mig and sent to Russia for research) but the military does indeed use inert weapons for training in addition to live rounds, easy way to tell is with blue paint or stripe added.

Just a thought that I have on the Flight 800 issue. If you all will recall there is ALWAYS the added comment by the "Authorities", that there is "no evidence of explosive residue". If the military exercises in that area were at fault there would be no "residue". As they use inert warheads on the exercise missles. Just a "dummy" missle hitting an aircraft at say 1000mph would be more than enough to cause the type of structural failure seen in that 747.

 

Uhm, no. A blunt impact (which is what an inert missile hitting the plane is) would look nothing like an internal explosion. There would be a clear point of impact, where either there would be a relatively clean hole punched into the skin or the panel would be pushed inward with a jagged torn hole in the middle. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if an inert missile travelling at high speed could punch clean through to the other side (I also won't be surprised if it didn't and got squashed like an empty soda can, but that is a different matter). Depending on what it hit along the way you could still be in serious trouble, but it would in no way resemble an explosion in the central fuel tank.