stmarysmead
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,271
- Reaction score
- 16,482
The obvious answer is that there is something...important to the government...to hide.
Documentary aims to 'break silence' on crash of TWA Flight 800
- Thread starter Steely Dan
- Start date
Would seem so. I remember this scenario vividly. The first reports were of Navy maneuvers in the area, the second report(s) of flashes, possibly missiles. The next reports, by our gov't, were on-board explosions, etc.
Maybe the gov't was breaking us in, gently (or not) to cover ups. As time goes by, I see these cover ups as more, and more, blatant.
But, that's just me, and what I see. God alone knows the truth, and I guarantee, Rep or Dem, neither will you.
I find it fascinating that none of the conspiracies account for the fact that not one witness out of 700+ saw the airplane or even what they perceive as a missile until after an explosion. At 2030 hrs there was still some daylight yet no missile contrails were witnessed as well.
BBM, "conspiracies". Why is everything that goes against what people in power say, is labeled a "conspiracy", even when their explanation goes against what was seen? Is there no room for independant thought, eye-witnesses, explanations other than what we are force-fed, the same as geese for foie gras, to be slaughtered for the delectation, safety of whomever?
I would love to be able to believe everything our "duly elected gov't" says. Alas, I cannot, I've been around too long, seen too much.:seeya: Thing is, there are many of us left.
redheadedgal
Former Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,659
- Reaction score
- 102
http://flight800.org/krieger.html
and, why would a negative be confiscated by the FBI if it was innocuous?
It's a conspiracy because there is no evidence to support that belief, at least none that is public already. Simply basing a theory off of only witness testimony is faulty at best, any trial watcher will tell you that.
It's not like these alternative scenarios were not tested via the NTSB. Read the 300+ page report, it's on their site. Unless you believe that entire document is a lie.
The point is that if there really was a missile fired, every radar in a wide area would have lit up with that signature. Every vessel in the water with radar would have seen it and not every vessel is a US military one either. JFK air traffic controllers may have also been able to see it.
I'm just saying that is a ton of people keeping their mouth shut, in a time today where everything and anything is getting leaked and the best this documentary could do is find a few retired people who were already suspicious from day one.
Elley Mae
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2008
- Messages
- 21,941
- Reaction score
- 45,674
What about shoulder launched missiles?
I don't think they leave contrails. jmo idk
[video=youtube;OKAFtW0zEFs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKAFtW0zEFs[/video]
In the documentary, the FBI took some people to view a shoulder fired rocket launch. There were no contrails with the firing. All you could see was a white bright orb. They placed the observers at various locations. The were hoping that each would describe something different. They all described the same thing, as a missile firing.
Mentioning radar. On the radar track of the plane, there was a spot that ran perpendicular with the plane track. The perpendicular track's speed was calculated when it intercepted the plane track, the speed of the other track was Mach 3.
Steely Dan
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Messages
- 30,558
- Reaction score
- 105
Here's my thoughts on it. I think that if there was a coverup it was done to avoid fear at the Olympics.
There is no missile that travels at Mach 3, especially one if it's shoulder fired. The fastest missile is probably an ICBM (about Mach 2) and I think we can all agree no ICBM hit that plane.
Could the debris field travel at Mach 3?
I only watched the documentary once, so saying that. They showed the perpendicular trail. I could be wrong but I think he said Mach 3. The other 2 had never seen this trace. The trace came from a FOIA request from the NTSB. I don't think he ever said that the trace came from actual missile travel but that it did exist.
Steely Dan
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Messages
- 30,558
- Reaction score
- 105
Anything that hits Mach one or over will cause a sonic boom. So nothing substantial must have hit sonic speed. IIRC
I see what you are saying. The trace showed that there was something perpendicular to the trace on the radar. The radar trace was (supposed) to be just the tract of the airplane. There was an anomaly in that tract. They never did say exactly what that was. I thought that it was the missile, but could it have been the debris after the missile exploded externally with the help of the central tank. Dunno. The documentary never solves that equation but only shows evidence that further evaluation needs to exist.
Ten facts you need to know about TWA 800:
http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/06/twa-flight-800-crash-conspiracy-documentary/
http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/06/twa-flight-800-crash-conspiracy-documentary/
So, which side of this debate are you on? I know where I stand, do you?