New Documentary about TWA Flight 800, Watch it Now!

[flexy]

Do you think that TWA 800 exploded because the fuel-tank ignited... ?

There is a new documentation which will premiere on July 17th, see

http://us.cnn.com/2013/06/19/us/twa-crash-claim/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

However, on vimeo, here, you can watch this documentary already now:

http://vimeo.com/59099154

Password: epix123

It's a very well done documentary which WILL make you question the official story. I ask anyone who would want to join the discussion about the TWA 800 incident PLEASE watch the movie first. It's not your typical, badly made and badly researched "conspiracy movie". It has former members of the investigation in it coming forward, it sends chills down my spine. It's a quite long documentary, 1:40. Must see, IMO.

G.

 

[Fern]

I haven't seen the documentary. I'll watch it on TV. (I have no audio on my PC).

At the time this happened I placed more trust in the eyewitness accounts of the military pilots who claimed to have seen a missile strike the airplane. I.e., this is the one 'conspiracy theory' I tend to suspect is true.

Fern

 

[flexy]

PW corrected, sorry!!

 

[leeland]

Marked for later

 

[MtnMan]

I'm sure that the fact that I have watched this has been noted by DHS and other agencies and combined with my online ammo orders, and pro 2A stance has raised my name up the list.

I suspect that main stream media is already being directed on how to cover this story. I never bought the bullshit about the tank in the first place, too many eye witnesses.

And a shout out to the DHS, NSA, and others "bite me"

 

[JEDIYoda]

I'm sure that the fact that I have watched this has been noted by DHS and other agencies and combined with my online ammo orders, and pro 2A stance has raised my name up the list.

I suspect that main stream media is already being directed on how to cover this story.

And a shout out to the DHS, NSA, and others "bite me"

your too full of yourself...

 

[Dari]

All I remember about that flight was that some Egyptian pilots were on it and they were returning home after having extensive advanced training in our latest fighter plane at the time. Naturally, everyone blamed the Israelis...

 

[Nintendesert]

Real interesting documentary, I wouldn't have given it the time of day normally but after seeing all the secret things our government likes to do, covering up an incident like this doesn't seem as far fetched.

 

[werepossum]

I'm sure that the fact that I have watched this has been noted by DHS and other agencies and combined with my online ammo orders, and pro 2A stance has raised my name up the list.

I suspect that main stream media is already being directed on how to cover this story. I never bought the bullshit about the tank in the first place, too many eye witnesses.

And a shout out to the DHS, NSA, and others "bite me"

+1

Not only too many eye witnesses and confiscated videos, but they leaked that it was the center fuel tank, then took months to actually order center fuel tank wiring to be checked. Had they really believed it was a short in the center fuel tank wiring, they'd hardly have left so many identical planes flying around with potential bombs.

 

[woolfe9998]

+1

Not only too many eye witnesses and confiscated videos, but they leaked that it was the center fuel tank, then took months to actually order center fuel tank wiring to be checked. Had they really believed it was a short in the center fuel tank wiring, they'd hardly have left so many identical planes flying around with potential bombs.

What really happened and why was it covered up here?

 

[lotus503]

Watching this now, well done and pretty compelling. Not the typical conspiracy deal.

 

[werepossum]

What really happened and why was it covered up here?

My best guess (and I haven't watched this documentary yet) is that the plane was struck by an inert surface-launched training missile which shifted lock from a drone. But it's kind of like JFK's assassination - there's been so much obfuscation that I'd hate to bet on exactly what happened and why it was covered up.

 

[woolfe9998]

My best guess (and I haven't watched this documentary yet) is that the plane was struck by an inert surface-launched training missile which shifted lock from a drone. But it's kind of like JFK's assassination - there's been so much obfuscation that I'd hate to bet on exactly what happened and why it was covered up.

Yes, that's your best theory. Process of elimination:

Well, it couldn't have been a terrorist attack. The government had no motive to cover that up but rather the opposite motive to publicize it. Nor would any terrorists at that time have had SAM's sophisticated enough to hit a moving aircraft at that altitude and down a large commercial aircraft. We aren't talking about Stingers here, but serious hardware. Let alone being able to deploy such equipment on American soil.

So it would have to have been the US military. The government had no motive to down one of our civilian aircraft. That leaves only the possibility of an error.

The trouble I have with the notion that the government covered up an error made in the field by some technician is that it doesn't make any sense. If it had been an error, it wouldn't have scandalized the White House, the FBI or the NTSB. It would have subjected the military to public criticism and some lawsuits. Given the risk inherent in covering something like that up - getting caught means you are guilty of serious crimes - I highly doubt anyone decides to take that risk.

Watching the documentary now. Given the implausibility of the entire theory, I'm expecting extraordinarily compelling evidence.

 

[jpeyton]

My best guess (and I haven't watched this documentary yet) is that the plane was struck by an inert surface-launched training missile which shifted lock from a drone. But it's kind of like JFK's assassination - there's been so much obfuscation that I'd hate to bet on exactly what happened and why it was covered up.

It's not that hard for a terrorist group to sneak in shoulder-fired STA missile.

 

[jpeyton]

Well, it couldn't have been a terrorist attack. The government had no motive to cover that up but rather the opposite motive to publicize it.

Wrong. It happened in 1996, after Bush Sr. but before Bush Jr. There weren't any Chickenhawks in the White House looking for a war at that time.

 

[woolfe9998]

Wrong. It happened in 1996, after Bush Sr. but before Bush Jr. There weren't any Chickenhawks in the White House looking for a war at that time.

So the motive for taking the risk to cover up an attack of Islamic terrorists was what?

 

[woolfe9998]

It's not that hard for a terrorist group to sneak in shoulder-fired STA missile.

Could a shoulder fired missile have down this aircraft?

Why are some witnesses saying they saw this "streak of light" coming from a ship on the water?

 

[JTsyo]

Was this the 747 that went down near Long Island?

 

[lotus503]

Compelling well done documentary

 

[jpeyton]

So the motive for taking the risk to cover up an attack of Islamic terrorists was what?

Our economy was exploding at that time. The internet boom was in its infancy. Deficits shrinking. There were lots of reasons not to get bogged down in a long, expensive war (possibly with one of our political allies).

 

[davmat787]

Could a shoulder fired missile have down this aircraft?

Why are some witnesses saying they saw this "streak of light" coming from a ship on the water?

I don't see why not. Remember that TWA800 was plodding along @ 13,000 feet and nowhere near cruising speed yet as she was still in a congested area.

While I am not positive of the performance characteristics of a Stinger, I don't think a huge target @ 13,000 feet and relatively slow speed is outside of it.

And many witnesses report seeing upto 3 missiles leaving the surface.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
While I am not positive of the performance characteristics of a Stinger, I don't think a huge target @ 13,000 feet and relatively slow speed is outside of it.

And many witnesses report seeing upto 3 missiles leaving the surface.

Just saw an article claiming they were good up to 16,000'

Fern

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't see why not. Remember that TWA800 was plodding along @ 13,000 feet and nowhere near cruising speed yet as she was still in a congested area.

While I am not positive of the performance characteristics of a Stinger, I don't think a huge target @ 13,000 feet and relatively slow speed is outside of it.

And many witnesses report seeing upto 3 missiles leaving the surface.

Yes, and some said they saw it come from a light on the water, i.e. a ship. The witnesses said very many different things.

A stinger carriers a 2 Kg warhead. I doubt that is sufficient to down a 747. Maybe with a very a lucky shot.

Halfway through the documentary so far. I'm unimpressed with it's cherry picking of witnesses, and with it's cherry picking of fragments of their testimony to make it sound like they were all consistent. I'm also unimpressed with the absence of any contrary viewpoint.

 

[davmat787]

Yes, and some said they saw it come from a light on the water, i.e. a ship. The witnesses said very many different things.

A stinger carriers a 2 Kg warhead. I doubt that is sufficient to down a 747. Maybe with a very a lucky shot.

Halfway through the documentary so far. I'm unimpressed with it's cherry picking of witnesses, and with it's cherry picking of fragments of their testimony to make it sound like they were all consistent. I'm also unimpressed with the absence of any contrary viewpoint.

I assumed the contrary viewpoint was the governments official report and findings.

 

[flexy]

I am not sure what to think about the "terrorist attack" theory and why it would've been covered up - but then again it's *thinkable* that such happened, eg. also interesting that a month later there was the Olympic games in Atlanta.

The "missile(s) gone wrong in a military exercise" theory sounds more plausible...along with the speculation it might have been some new kind of weapon, eg. new sort of submarine -> air weapon which wouldn't leave radar traces.

It will really come down to evidence..which..according to the film exists, eg. debris moving at Mach 4 along with other evidence, such as debris which was tested positive for Nitrates ...the startling witness reports about the threats etc. not even counted.