Silenced: TWA 800 and the Subversion of Justice

[Galileo]

Silenced: TWA 800 and the Subversion of Justice

This documentary proves that the U.S. government-including the FBI and DOJ-are totally corrupt and involved in serious felony crime and the outrageous cover-up of truth concerning the mysterious crash of TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996. As you will see, Flight 800 was actually destroyed by a surface-to-air missile. Every allegation made in this film is backed up with facts-none more dramatic than those that come from the Federal government itself. You'll learn what the 736 official eyewitnesses actually saw; why aviators reject the CIA "cartoon" explanation; how the Feds criminally suppressed reporting; the critical witness drawings; the rigged NTSB hearings; the damning radar data and documentation; the altered physical evidence; undeniable proof of explosive residue proving a missile strike; the stinging report from the machinist union; and much more! http://www.1-free-dvd.com http://thesenatorhillary.blogspot.com

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7552065575091502192&ei=u0PySf2FOY6k_AGrqejuAg&q=TWA+flight+800+missile&hl=en

Now that we have a democrat back in the Whitehouse, this one needs to be re-visited.

[defaultdotxbe]

Now that we have a democrat back in the Whitehouse, this one needs to be re-visited.
clinton wasnt a democrat?

[Galileo]

clinton wasnt a democrat?

yes, he was. Now we have another dem back in the Whitehouse.

[defaultdotxbe]

yes, he was. Now we have another dem back in the Whitehouse.
but if a democrat couldnt or wouldnt prevent the coverup, why would another reopen the case?

[Galileo]

but if a democrat couldnt or wouldnt prevent the coverup, why would another reopen the case?

Another event might occur, now that we have a democrat back.

[defaultdotxbe]

Another event might occur, now that we have a democrat back.
what does that have to do with revisiting twa 800?

[Galileo]

what does that have to do with revisiting twa 800?

learning your history is the only way to prevent another event.

[dudalb]

God, is Galileo out to break the record for starting the most meaningless threads in one day at JREF?

[TokenMac]

When did I join the Galileo film club?

Three theards about movies that are proof of blah blah based on blah blah.

[beachnut]

... Flight 800 was actually destroyed by a surface-to-air missile....


Now that we have a democrat back in the Whitehouse, this one needs to be re-visited. Clinton was in office, he is a democrat; you made a mistake. A dumb mistake.

Oops, 800 was due to the fuel tank; no missile found. The falling debris in the ocean looks like it is going up and down; the reflection in the water. Darn, you can't figure out 911, or Flight 800. (the details are in the final report. but you love the idiot version made up by idiots)

The Clinton's flew a 747, they had a vested interest to find out the cause.

Did you fail to read the accident report? Do you need some help?

[CurtC]

Now that we have a democrat back in the Whitehouse, this one needs to be re-visited.

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u27/kikapurider/FAIL.jpg

[fezzic]

but if a democrat couldnt or wouldnt prevent the coverup, why would another reopen the case?

Another event might occur, now that we have a democrat back.

Am I right in thinking that Galileo is kind of implying that the democrats were behind the destruction of TWA flight 800 and this alleged coverup? Nah, can't be. :boggled:

[Redtail]

Another event might occur, now that we have a democrat back.

A few events occurred with a republican if I'm not mistaken...

[SezMe]

... http://www.1-free-dvd.com
From the above link:

Introducing...a Revolutionary New Invention...
A FREE ENERGY ELECTRIC GENERATOR...
> > > Forever Escape the Grid!
CLICK HERE to see the
YouTube short film proving this remarkable technology exists.
A Single Generator powers your entire house!
Thanks, Galileo, I hadn't had my humor fix for the day.

[Corsair 115]

TWA 800 was not shot down by a missile. There is no conspiracy or cover up. It was destroyed by a centre fuel tank explosion. It's that simple.

None of the forensic evidence supports the missile strike theory, it all supports the fuel tank detonation. For reference, I would refer you to this book by Mary Roach, Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers, specifically, the chapter entitled "Beyond the Black Box."

It deals with TWA 800, and involves the medical examiner who examined the remains of the victims of that flight. It discusses what exactly what can be learned from human remains in terms of aviation accidents. For example, the way a human body comes apart after hitting the water from a great height is different from how it comes apart as a result of an explosion.

It's an interesting, if somewhat gruesome, read.

[Galileo]

TWA 800 was not shot down by a missile. There is no conspiracy or cover up. It was destroyed by a centre fuel tank explosion. It's that simple.

None of the forensic evidence supports the missile strike theory, it all supports the fuel tank detonation. For reference, I would refer you to this book by Mary Roach, Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers, specifically, the chapter entitled "Beyond the Black Box."

It deals with TWA 800, and involves the medical examiner who examined the remains of the victims of that flight. It discusses what exactly what can be learned from human remains in terms of aviation accidents. For example, the way a human body comes apart after hitting the water from a great height is different from how it comes apart as a result of an explosion.

It's an interesting, if somewhat gruesome, read.

There are 736 witnesses who saw the missile. You are not an eyewitness, so your opinion is not legitimate. If you have 736 eyewitnesses, then it is not a conspiracy theory.

[SezMe]

You are not an eyewitness, so your opinion is not legitimate.
Right back attacha, pal. The implication is, of course, that this thread is not legitimate.

[zaphod2016]

Let us assume that Galileo's theory is correct, the witnesses are legit, and TWA 800 was shot down by a missile.

What was the motive for this?

Was it an accident, or was there some reason to want to blow up TWA 800?

I love a good CT, but I'm not seeing any rational motive here.

[Galileo]

Let us assume that Galileo's theory is correct, the witnesses are legit, and TWA 800 was shot down by a missile.

What was the motive for this?

Was it an accident, or was there some reason to want to blow up TWA 800?

I love a good CT, but I'm not seeing any rational motive here.

What isn't the motive?

[Alt+F4]

What was the motive for this?

There doesn't have to be a motive, the government is just evil...pure evil. Everyone CT nut knows that it's impossible for an airplane to crash due to an accident!

[Galileo]

There doesn't have to be a motive, the government is just evil...pure evil. Everyone CT nut knows that it's impossible for an airplane to crash due to an accident!

It could have been an accident.

[CORed]

learning your history is the only way to prevent another event.

Yes, and I'm pretty sure Boeing corrected the flaws in the fuel tank wiring that caused the fuel tank explosion.

[Corsair 115]

There are 736 witnesses who saw the missile.


Did they see a missile? Or did they see what they interpreted as a missile? Big, big difference there. "Looks like" a missile does not mean it was a missile.

Also, eyewitness evidence does not trump physical or forensic evidence. There is no physical or forensic evidence of a missile strike. The entire reconstruction of the TWA 800 aircraft is sitting in a hangar as an accident investigation training tool. There is no damage consistent with a missile strike.

End of story.

You can either accept reality or deny it. Which will it be?


You are not an eyewitness, so your opinion is not legitimate.


Take it up with the medical examiner who actually examined the human remains from the flight. I suggest you read the chapter of the book I mentioned, and then come back and explain point by point why the medical examiner is wrong.

But I know you won't do that. You're not really interested in reality or facts. you're only interested in what furthers your particular personal agenda. But, hey, here's your chance to prove me wrong! Offer a rebuttal to the points brought out in the chapter of the book. Will you take the challenge?

[SezMe]

This documentary proves that the U.S. government-including the FBI and DOJ-are totally corrupt and involved in serious felony crime and the outrageous cover-up of truth concerning the mysterious crash of TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996. As you will see, Flight 800 was actually destroyed by a surface-to-air missile.

My bold.

It could have been an accident.
So which is it? The film "proves" it was shot down or it might have been an accident.

[Caustic Logic]

My bold.


So which is it? The film "proves" it was shot down or it might have been an accident.

Hey cut the guy some slack, he's qualifying... clearly it's the latter, COULD be accident, but *strongly indicated* a missile strike. Right, Galileio?

I looked into this once a few years ago, not interested yet to revisit, and it did seem an uncanny amount of evidence, all circumstantial of course, but what I never recall seeing was any explanation of motive. If you'd like to help, have you any thoughts on why the PTB would shoot down TWA800? Secondarily, why was it worth the risk to do that right off the coast where so many people could see it and have to be contradicted by some cover-up?

[zaphod2016]

What isn't the motive?

Let me rephrase: why did they do it?

The video you posted shows a lot of inconsistencies in the official story, and if taken on face value, undermines the accepted story of TWA 800 entirely.

However, it does not address a) who shot the missile? and b) why did they do it?

If this was covered in the video, excuse me. I tried my best to pay attention, but was multi-tasking through most of it.

[fromdownunder]

My bold.


So which is it? The film "proves" it was shot down or it might have been an accident.

I can actually answer that one. "It might have been an accident" may simply mean that the person who pressed the Missile Launch button did so in an "oops, mea culpa, I should not have done that" moment The later "cover-up" was actually only done to protect the Army or the Navy, or the Air Force or the Home Guard or the Masons or the NWO, or the Zionists or whoever who made the big boo-boo.

Oh, BTW, I don't believe a word of it - I simply recall that this argument was used by woos a few years back.

Norm

[fuelair]

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u27/kikapurider/FAIL.jpg
This really needs a whole Ship of Fail, not just a kitty of same.

[Galileo]

Did they see a missile? Or did they see what they interpreted as a missile? Big, big difference there. "Looks like" a missile does not mean it was a missile.

Also, eyewitness evidence does not trump physical or forensic evidence. There is no physical or forensic evidence of a missile strike. The entire reconstruction of the TWA 800 aircraft is sitting in a hangar as an accident investigation training tool. There is no damage consistent with a missile strike.

End of story.

You can either accept reality or deny it. Which will it be?





Take it up with the medical examiner who actually examined the human remains from the flight. I suggest you read the chapter of the book I mentioned, and then come back and explain point by point why the medical examiner is wrong.

But I know you won't do that. You're not really interested in reality or facts. you're only interested in what furthers your particular personal agenda. But, hey, here's your chance to prove me wrong! Offer a rebuttal to the points brought out in the chapter of the book. Will you take the challenge?

They saw the missile, which was lost at sea.

Direct evidence trumps circumstantial evidence.

[defaultdotxbe]

They saw the missile, which was lost at sea.

Direct evidence trumps circumstantial evidence.
there was no evidence that the plane had been hit by a missile

empirical evidence trumps hearsay

[Wowbagger]

If this is true, then where's the trial? There are mass murderers (or, if it was an accident, then massively negligent missile operators) out there, and no one seems to be going after them.

[Pardalis]

What I want to know is when will we finally see a thread started by Galileo about astronomy?

[Galileo]

If this is true, then where's the trial? There are mass murderers (or, if it was an accident, then massively negligent missile operators) out there, and no one seems to be going after them.

Wow, that's really funny to make fun of dead people who were murdered. Have you no respect?

[Galileo]

What I want to know is when will we finally see a thread started by Galileo about astronomy?

I've done that, but no one is interested.

[CptColumbo]

Planes crash all over the world.
People die, everyday, all over the world.
S*** happens.

[CurtC]

This really needs a whole Ship of Fail, not just a kitty of same.

You're right...

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u27/kikapurider/FAIL2.jpg

[SmartyPants]

They saw the missile, which was lost at sea.

Question: How could the missle be lost at sea? If it collided with the plane, then, presumably, it must have been near, or with, the plane wreckage and bodies.

[Corsair 115]

They saw the missile, which was lost at sea.

Direct evidence trumps circumstantial evidence.


I see you have failed to take the challenge. I'm not surprised. But perhaps in your haste to post your conspiratorial theories you missed the essential points I mentioned earlier.

First, there is no physical evidence of a missile strike on the recovered and reconstructed debris of the aircraft. Second, there is no forensic evidence of a missile strike on the recovered human remains.

Again, I ask you: read the chapter "Beyond the Black Box" in the book Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers and then report back here with a point-by-point rebuttal of the items mentioned. What did the medical examiner get wrong and why?

Will you step up and really support your conspiracy theory by taking the challenge? Come on, here's your golden opportunity!

[apathoid]

You know, they(whomever they are) are going a very long way to coverup this little mishap. Aviation authorities from the USA (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgDAC.nsf/0/22bceed3ec9d8fa486256bd6005a6c47/$FILE/AC25.981-1C.pdf), Europe (http://www.ucl.cz/download/pdf_ads/easa_2007_0226_e.pdf), and Australia (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/airwd/adfiles/over/b737/b737-238.pdf) have issued Airworthiness Directives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airworthiness_Directive) to install a Transient Suppresion System, or similar in aging aircraft to reduce the likelihood of fuel vapor ignition. This was obviously not enough, so the FAA has introduced an all new Aviation Regulation, SFAR 88 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/0/eefb3f94451dc06286256c93004f5e07!OpenDocument&Click=) to help keep this supposed "accident" from happening again. But was that enough? Of course not! New Boeing products are shipping with a fuel tank Nitrogen Generating System (http://www.sjap.nl/Fuel_Tank_Safety_NGS%20737.pdf) that inerts tank vapors.

If those seamen finally ever do come forward and blow the whistle, the worlds airline industry is gonna be p*ssed!

[zaphod2016]

I can actually answer that one. "It might have been an accident" may simply mean that the person who pressed the Missile Launch button did so in an "oops, mea culpa, I should not have done that" moment The later "cover-up" was actually only done to protect the Army or the Navy, or the Air Force or the Home Guard or the Masons or the NWO, or the Zionists or whoever who made the big boo-boo.

There you go- motive. At the very least, it sounds plausible.

[SmartyPants]

I see you have failed to take the challenge. I'm not surprised. But perhaps in your haste to post your conspiratorial theories you missed the essential points I mentioned earlier.

First, there is no physical evidence of a missile strike on the recovered and reconstructed debris of the aircraft. Second, there is no forensic evidence of a missile strike on the recovered human remains.

Again, I ask you: read the chapter "Beyond the Black Box" in the book Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers and then report back here with a point-by-point rebuttal of the items mentioned. What did the medical examiner get wrong and why?

Will you step up and really support your conspiracy theory by taking the challenge? Come on, here's your golden opportunity!

Actually, on your recommendation, I read that chapter; really interesting. Galileo, you can find it on Google Book Search.

[fuelair]

I've done that, but no one is interested.Actually, many of us are interested in real astronomy, but not particularly in arguments over who did what, where and when. That's politics.

[fromdownunder]

I've done that, but no one is interested.

Link please?

Evidence - don't leave home without it.

Norm

[SezMe]

There you go- motive. At the very least, it sounds plausible.
No it doesn't.

[fromdownunder]

No it doesn't.

Just out of interest, why is it not plausible as a motive per se? It is ridiculous because of the sheer scale of the event, but there are probably millions of examples around of people getting together and supporting an example of a friends or co-workers folly.

Norm

[zaphod2016]

Just out of interest, why is it not plausible as a motive per se? It is ridiculous because of the sheer scale of the event, but there are probably millions of examples around of people getting together and supporting an example of a friends or co-workers folly.

Norm

Exactly.

When I say "plausible" I mean: if I went to a movie, and this was the plot, I wouldn't roll my eyes and say "yeah right"; it is just plausible enough to make for compelling fiction.

[SezMe]

Just out of interest, why is it not plausible as a motive per se? It is ridiculous because of the sheer scale of the event...
There, you just answered your own question.

[lionking]

Well I watched the whole video waiting for motive/culprit/reason for cover-up. In vain.

[fromdownunder]

There, you just answered your own question.

We are probably talking a bit at cross purposes (or more likely, my communication skills are weak). I intended it to be stated as a motive "in principle", and my objection was to your original comment which appeared to mean that it could not be a motive at all, under any circumstances.

And now I'm confused by the whole thing which is going waaayyyy off topic. So I'll let it go at that.

Norm

[SezMe]

And now I'm confused by the whole thing which is going waaayyyy off topic. So I'll let it go at that.
Me too. Deal. :)

[TS-]

Now that we have a democrat back in the Whitehouse, this one needs to be re-visited.
what does that have to do with revisiting twa 800?
This is actually very telling, I think.


As most of the people who hang out in this forum ant the 9/11 CT forum know, conspiracy theories are fed by political bias, but it isn't really necessary. There are some people, and I'm lumping Galileo into this group, that are going to believe in CTs regardless. When Bush is in office and something happens, naturally a CT. But when Obama takes office and something happens, it's also a CT, irregardless of the differences in their administrations or personalities.

I think this is where the belief in the NWO/Illuminati etc comes from, or at least why people hold onto it so tightly. It isn't that they believe in those groups, and so any president/random politician or world figure that they hate is associated with them- I find it more likely to be in reverse. That because they are paranoid, they believe anyone with influence, certainly such a clear figure of authority as the President of the United States of America, is automatically in on a conspiracy. And to further that belief, even when the next guy takes office, irregardless of his life history or political affiliations, that guy is in on it too, as a rationalization.


So what we have here is someone who just switches to his Democrat CT folder from his Republican CT one. This particular theory doesn't even have anything to do with Obama or, really, any other Democrat. But people who are paranoid will find a reason to be paranoid, and so Galileo found cause to bring up an old Clinton-era CT just to scare himself, as a reminder that the Democrats are also evil, and that we are never safe.

[peteweaver]

Over here in the UK there have been some problems with idiots firing off hobby rockets with solid fuel rocket charges at police helicopters.
http://www.rocketstore.co.uk/

Even if an object from the ground had been fired in the path of TWA flight 800, it does not necessarily mean that a military weapon had been fired at it.

[CurtC]

Even if an object from the ground had been fired in the path of TWA flight 800, it does not necessarily mean that a military weapon had been fired at it.

But it was around 15,000 feet up. How high can hobby rockets go?

[ktesibios]

But it was around 15,000 feet up. How high can hobby rockets go?

Curt von Delius, using a modified version of his record-setting Level 3 airframe, crushed his previous 'M'-class altitude record of 37,762 feet by flying it to a GPS verified altitude of 45,328 feet AGL on September 19th 2008 and also set a new 'J'-class altitude record of 19,758 feet on September 21st 2008, during the XPRS launch in Nevada's Black Rock Desert. The altitudes were recently certified by the Tripoli Contest and Records Committee.
Scorched from aerodynamic heating after reaching almost 2,000 miles per hour, von Delius' "MMAX" flight used an 8,060 newton-second, Kosdon by AeroTech Animal-Compatible (KBA A-C) M1450W reload kit (AeroTech P/N K13145P, $300.00 MSRP) that generates a peak thrust of 480 pounds during a burn time of 5.46 seconds. The rocket pulled 24 Gs and the time to apogee was 46 seconds, with the vehicle coasting for nearly 40 seconds after motor burnout.

Source (http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/)

There are some serious hobbyists out there.

[BenBurch]

My pet theory at the time was that 800 had been punctured by space debris or a meteorite. Which is far more plausible than any of this conspiracy nonsense.

[Klimax]

My pet theory at the time was that 800 had been punctured by space debris or a meteorite. Which is far more plausible than any of this conspiracy nonsense.

You think?
Let's see:
1)Remote control unused satellite and guide it into "free-fall" with trajectory crossing trajectory of plane.

or

2)Fire a missile at satellite with some debris falling in the planned and projected trajectory crossing trajectory of plane.

[grmcdorman]

I don't think BenBurch meant intentionally - in particular since he included meteor* as one of the alternatives. (A re-entering satellite is not a meteor.)

* He said meteorite but meant meteor (http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=meteor), not meteorite (http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=meteorite). Often confused by laypeople, including myself.

[BenBurch]

Well, at the point where it hits the aircraft, doesn't it become a meteorite?

[grmcdorman]

Um, maybe, maybe not. I would tend to say not - a meteorite is what you find on the ground. In the air, it's a meteor. Arguable, though, especially since any meteor at flight altitudes that's still solid would be pretty guaranteed to hit the ground (at that altitude, I believe it's stabilized at terminal velocity and is no longer accompanied by a superheated shock wave). Mind you, if the object is at terminal velocity (i.e. slowed down from re-entry speed) it's not going to do a great deal of damage to the aircraft unless it's big. Even a small chunk ingested by an engine would probably only damage the engine - and remember, once the body has slowed down there's not much heat - the bulk, in fact, is still very cold.

In fact, in theory an aircraft could be damaged by a meteor detonation - i.e. by the overpressure/blast wave, not by chunks of rock. However, that's even more unlikely (especially since I suspect that most of those occur pretty high up and aren't very big).

Of course, if an aircraft was in the vicinity of an event like the Tunguska event it would be pretty much obliterated.