Documentary aims to 'break silence' on crash of TWA Flight 800

[ctkid]

You can view the rough cut documentary here.

[video=vimeo;59099154]http://vimeo.com/59099154[/video]

Password epix123

 

[stmarysmead]

I asked my parents what they thought about Flight 800, and they said to me: "If the plane was shot down, why didn't they just admit it? It was an accident, and I'm sure everyone would understand".

Okay, I really doubt the govt could admit they killed 230 people due to negligence immediately after it happened and not generate massive outrage. They would have to wait months/years for it lose some of its emotional effect, and then admit to everyone that oh wait, we shot it down even though we told you it was a mechanical malfunction (or whatever the reason was). Basically, My parents' hypothetical solution is way too simple and basic for such an event of this magnitude IMO.

Why didn't they just admit it? It was an election year. A tough one too.

Some might see a parallel to Benghazi.

Mistakes in an election year that cost American lives? ...uh-oh.

When this happened,I had complete and total faith in the veracity of what we were told. Today I see that power and political necessity are often a substitute for truth. And can be justified by many.

Today, Iam completely open to the possibility of a coverup.

 

[ctkid]

That would be vimeo.com/59099154

 

[Sonya610]

Where does the conspiracy on this originate from? NTSB found it was pilot error due to overuse of the rudder and in fact Airbus (the mfg of the plane) admitted there was a flaw with that piece of equipment.

I don't follow conspiracy theories so I never researched it. I just recall at the time they were amazingly QUICK to say it as an accident. Way too quick imo.

 

[Gardenlady]

Yeah I remember that one and thought it was suspicious. If I recall correctly....about 30 minutes after the crash the media and authorities were busy proclaiming "It wasn't terrorism! Just an accident!" when it seemed they couldn't POSSIBLY have had time to investigate and figure out what happened with any degree of certainty.

From what I remember, the initial comments were "terrorism is a possibility" - there was speculation that a terrorist launched some kind of a hand-held (shoulder mount? Not sure, I am not a weapons expert lol) rocket at the plane. When people started pointing out that that wouldn't have been possible from where the "launch" of the hypothetical missle was seen, the distance it would have had to travel, a terrorist would have picked a better spot, etc, THEN the commentary changed to "oh, it was a flaw with the aircraft".

What to me, points at a cover up of an accidental hit is just how quickly they tried to imply it was terrorism.

 

[Sonya610]

From what I remember, the initial comments were "terrorism is a possibility" - there was speculation that a terrorist launched some kind of a hand-held (shoulder mount? Not sure, I am not a weapons expert lol) rocket at the plane.

And shoulder mounted anti-aircraft weapons are surely the biggest threat to our commercial airlines and the government knows it. Other countries (such as Israel) outfit all of their commercial plains with systems to prevent a hit but the US doesn't (instead they make their own citizens take off their shoes, jackets, hats etc....unless of course they are Muslim in which case the rules don't apply to them....while ignoring the really big threats).

 

[Gardenlady]

So I decided to pester DH about this last night, lol. I asked him if I could ask him something about his time in the Navy, and after a joking "no, I didn't see anything about UFOs", (I used to watch too much x-files back in the 90s lol), I said no, not UFOs, something else. And he replied, "the navy didn't shoot down that plane". I was like, okay, HOW did you know I was going to ask about that!

Anyway, his opinion is that it was not a cover up of an accidental shoot down because if it WERE an accidental shoot down, they would have just hung the lowest ranking person out to dry for it. That it wouldnt have been worth a cover up when they can just have some low ranking person take the blame, and the officers are untouched. In other words, not big enough potatoes to risk a huge CYA.

I disagree, of course. And he did say that even if there was a cover up, he would not have seen/heard anything, since he worked Intel side, and it is the Operations side that would have been involved in the training exercises/any hypothetical coverup of a shoot-down, and that Intel and Ops DO NOT talk to each other. Or at least they didn't back in 1996.

He also said any cover up would not necessarily have involved lots of people, since any and all information is evaluated constantly, and decisions made before briefings as to whether that info gets passed up the chain (preserving plausible deniability for higher ups). It would have been shut down and compartmentalised fast. So any idea that a cover up might extend from say, the CNO all the way up to the President is unlikely. It would not even get to the CNO.

Anyway, that's all the info I got, until the doc comes out! :twocents:

 

[Gardenlady]

Yeah I remember that one and thought it was suspicious. If I recall correctly....about 30 minutes after the crash the media and authorities were busy proclaiming "It wasn't terrorism! Just an accident!" when it seemed they couldn't POSSIBLY have had time to investigate and figure out what happened with any degree of certainty.

But given the climate of the country at the time, wouldn't the hawks in the Bush admin have jumped all over themselves to have been handed yet another act of terrorism to inflame the public with? We were ramping up Afghanistan, and there was already talk about Iraq at the time, so I don't understand why they would have covered up a terrorist act. I'd think they'd have been positively GLEEFUL if it was (in fact, I have absolutely no problem picturing Darth Cheney uncorking some champagne over it!) terrorism. It would have been used as more fodder to justify the wars, wouldn't it?

 

[Gardenlady]

Why didn't they just admit it? It was an election year. A tough one too.

Some might see a parallel to Benghazi.

Mistakes in an election year that cost American lives? ...uh-oh.

When this happened,I had complete and total faith in the veracity of what we were told. Today I see that power and political necessity are often a substitute for truth. And can be justified by many.

Today, Iam completely open to the possibility of a coverup.

Are you talking the presidential election? Because I don't recall Clinton v Dole as being particularly tough at all. I remember many republicans were VERY unhappy with Dole as candidate, and I don't know of anyone who thought he had a snowball's chance in hell of beating Clinton.

 

[cityslick]

So I decided to pester DH about this last night, lol. I asked him if I could ask him something about his time in the Navy, and after a joking "no, I didn't see anything about UFOs", (I used to watch too much x-files back in the 90s lol), I said no, not UFOs, something else. And he replied, "the navy didn't shoot down that plane". I was like, okay, HOW did you know I was going to ask about that!

Anyway, his opinion is that it was not a cover up of an accidental shoot down because if it WERE an accidental shoot down, they would have just hung the lowest ranking person out to dry for it. That it wouldnt have been worth a cover up when they can just have some low ranking person take the blame, and the officers are untouched. In other words, not big enough potatoes to risk a huge CYA.

I disagree, of course. And he did say that even if there was a cover up, he would not have seen/heard anything, since he worked Intel side, and it is the Operations side that would have been involved in the training exercises/any hypothetical coverup of a shoot-down, and that Intel and Ops DO NOT talk to each other. Or at least they didn't back in 1996.

He also said any cover up would not necessarily have involved lots of people, since any and all information is evaluated constantly, and decisions made before briefings as to whether that info gets passed up the chain (preserving plausible deniability for higher ups). It would have been shut down and compartmentalised fast. So any idea that a cover up might extend from say, the CNO all the way up to the President is unlikely. It would not even get to the CNO.

Anyway, that's all the info I got, until the doc comes out! :twocents:

Remember that the TWA 800 investigation involved two seperate agencies doing two separate investigations (NTSB and FBI). So both agencies would of had to been in on it if it was in fact an accidental firing. Then ask yourself to what gain does the NTSB need to cover up for the Navy accidentally firing on an airplane as IMO I think it would benefit them from a safety aspect if it was not an internal issue with the airplane that caused the explosion.

 

[cityslick]

But given the climate of the country at the time, wouldn't the hawks in the Bush admin have jumped all over themselves to have been handed yet another act of terrorism to inflame the public with? We were ramping up Afghanistan, and there was already talk about Iraq at the time, so I don't understand why they would have covered up a terrorist act. I'd think they'd have been positively GLEEFUL if it was (in fact, I have absolutely no problem picturing Darth Cheney uncorking some champagne over it!) terrorism. It would have been used as more fodder to justify the wars, wouldn't it?

If we're talking about the crash after 9/11, the only reason I can see the NTSB trying to cover it up would be if they were getting undue pressure from the FAA because at the time they (FAA and the airline industry) were in full scale damage control on trying to get people to feel safe when they fly.

I just don't see how there was a cover up when there are zero reports of an explosion to that plane. The plane went down basically on takeoff.

 

[Gardenlady]

If we're talking about the crash after 9/11, the only reason I can see the NTSB trying to cover it up would be if they were getting undue pressure from the FAA because at the time they (FAA and the airline industry) were in full scale damage control on trying to get people to feel safe when they fly.

I just don't see how there was a cover up when there are zero reports of an explosion to that plane. The plane went down basically on takeoff.

Okay, that I could imagine - a cover up in order to protect the airline industry/economy.

But like you said, I also don't remember there being anything suspicious to that plane (the one right after 9/11) going down. At least nowhere to the extent of the suspicions and talk around flight 800. I tend to think it was just thought of as suspicious simply due to the timing.

 

[Gardenlady]

Remember that the TWA 800 investigation involved two seperate agencies doing two separate investigations (NTSB and FBI). So both agencies would of had to been in on it if it was in fact an accidental firing. Then ask yourself to what gain does the NTSB need to cover up for the Navy accidentally firing on an airplane as IMO I think it would benefit them from a safety aspect if it was not an internal issue with the airplane that caused the explosion.

So you're saying that it would have been of no benefit to the NTSB to aid in a cover up of a Navy shoot down?

(Trying to get it clear in my head)

If so, that's a good question lol. My impression of the NTSB has always been that they were fairly impartial and very thorough in what they do. Why WOULD they participate in a cover up?

 

[STANDREID]

It seemed to me that the FBI essentially just took the Navy's word for it that it wasn't an accidental shoot down so I'm not sure they would have to be active participants in a cover up.

 

[STANDREID]

No doubt that many in the succeeding Bush administration would delight in hanging something like this on Clinton but I don't think many or any would do so if they believed it would harm the citizens view of their country.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

There might be people in the documentary who claim that the plane was brought down and there was a coverup, but there will be no sort of confirmation. If the truth were to ever come out, it would be breaking news on every news channel. It doesn't make sense to me that a month from now, on some obscure channel, we will find out ~what really happened~. I doubt this documentary will be any different from any other documentary, maybe some new people will talk, maybe learn something you didn't know before, but no huge shocking revelation.

 

[stmarysmead]

When this accident happened, I could never have imagined that our government agencies had the ability to keep so much secret.

But recent disclosures...have made it understandable that these whistleblowers felt they needed to retire....before they could come forward and speak out.

A film was not the cause of the terror on Benghazi but our government told us that "version" affirmatively thru various media outlets. Our government told the grieving parents the same story at the funerals.

So false stories have uses. We do not always know the rationale. Perhaps the truth of Flight800 was inconvenient at the time...and the fuel tank explosion just as useful as the "film."

 

[cityslick]

So you're saying that it would have been of no benefit to the NTSB to aid in a cover up of a Navy shoot down?

(Trying to get it clear in my head)

If so, that's a good question lol. My impression of the NTSB has always been that they were fairly impartial and very thorough in what they do. Why WOULD they participate in a cover up?

I think if the NTSB truly found evidence of something other than it being an internal reason (like a accidental missile strike), I don't know what their reasoning would be to cover it up as it shifts all blame to the military instead of faulty maintainence procedures within the airline industry.

That article I posted makes another good point. In the very beginning, the conspiracy was that it was a bomb but then when witness reports came out on what they saw (the rising fireball), it changed to a missile strike.

 

[cityslick]

When this accident happened, I could never have imagined that our government agencies had the ability to keep so much secret.

But recent disclosures...have made it understandable that these whistleblowers felt they needed to retire....before they could come forward and speak out.

A film was not the cause of the terror on Benghazi but our government told us that "version" affirmatively thru various media outlets. Our government told the grieving parents the same story at the funerals.

So false stories have uses. We do not always know the rationale. Perhaps the truth of Flight800 was inconvenient at the time...and the fuel tank explosion just as useful as the "film."

I ask again though. The NTSB, one of the most transparent agencies this country has, to what end would they want to cover this up instead of shifting blame to the military if there was evidence of such? Why would they go through all the trouble of launching the most expansive investigation in their history (4 years) only to cover up the real reason for the plane going down?

I can understand the FBI being involved in a cover up. The NTSB, not so much.

 

[ctkid]

The FBI did not let the NTSB do their job.