Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire TWA flight was not brought down by a gas tank explosion.

I can tell you this:

In the nine years I lived and worked at Cape Canaveral, I watched hundreds of missile launches. These were satellite carriers that are up to 15 feet in diameter and throw out a flame trail a thousand feet long. And unless and until people hear the rumble, most folks who weren't actively waiting for it never noticed them.

You might argue that such events were "expected" down there, and that's true. But the fact remains that even HUGE rocket trails aren't that detectable, even at night.

Look, it might have been terrorists with a stinger. It might have been the Navy doing exercises. It might have been aliens or a faulty electrical connection inside the gas tank.

I never did much care any way. Don't get me wrong, I'm sorry for the passengers and crew, but let us just say it was a terrorist attach and the US was able to keep it hushed up. Who won? I'd say the good guys. I was willing to eat the story at the time, because it did me no practical good to doubt it.

My point is this: why are we all talking about this now? It was 1996. My kids were babies. I was still married to Satan. Why? Because 6 "whistleblowers" come forward with a documentary.

1) Why now? Why not in 1997, 2001, or any time in the last 15 years?
2) Why a documentary film? Dang! Let us just say somebody found the guy on the Grassy Knoll in Dallas and his rifle. Would you suspect something fishy if they toured the country with the assassin in a cage and the gun in a display case and charged $5 for admission?
3) Lets just say we had another Lockerbee-style incident. How trashy would the terrorists sound if they came forward and claimed the kill and the NTSB came out with a "ball lightning" or "electrical failure" type of cause.

We're talking about it because those six folks wanted us to. Because they're making a grundle of dollars from all this, and they know that they won't be called to task for presenting this entertainment-value-only "documentary."

"It will be interesting to see if someone has a better theory on what happened.

Not a big fan of most conspiracy theories, but airplanes hardly ever just blow up for "electrical shorts".

One of the key findings was they never found any explosive residue on it, that would confirm a bomb or missile?"

There were tests for residue explosives made. When the results were delivered to the requestors, the CIA rep present escorted the results and the reciepients of the tests from the room. The results were never allowed to be viewed. This from recent testimony from one of the two hired investigators who testified that he saw fragmentation holes from an exterior source and some hull-blackening from residual carbon from a suspected HE blast.

Appears that we were all lied to again. Only a few EYES ONLY have access to the test results. Conspiracy theory? Who cares? Call it "unanswered questions" if you don't like CT.

I am now CONVINCED people just post without reading, they just want to get their crap out there no matter what. How many friggin times can it be said a STINGER (or SA-7) CANNOT do what some claim? It just doesn't have the reach for one thing and it's a HEAT SEEKER meaning it would have guided on one of the engines and not center of mass. As far as the USN is concerned what ships were out there and how FAR from the mishap? I know speculation is fun, but at least work SOME facts into your train(albeit derailed) of thoughts...

The news as of this Am was that SOME INVESTIGATORS held to that theory but the official opinion has not changed.
Some sort of special is coming out about it.

"I remember them fixing several planes that had wires with the potential to become exposed (or were exposed) next to the fuel tank after that explosion, so if it was a cover up , that must have been part of it too.

I also remember just recently a news report talking about the potential for a static discharge or spark creation in or around the fuel tanks of large planes without much of a solution to prevent it. I think the gist of the story was its a wonder we haven't had more incidents like the flight in question here."

It is VERY unlikely that a full tank(s) of JP4 exploded from a short or static electricity. The tanks are grounded and coated with antistatic compounds. There is a plastic mesh inside the tank just like the A10 Warthog has that immediately quenches the effects of 23mm Soviet (Russian) HE AA rounds. The plane was fully fueled for a Transatlantic flight to France leaving very little air in the tanks which should have been topped-off with nitrogen. The fact that hundreds saw a streaking glow like a missile makes before the explosion cannot be easily dismissed as it has been by media shills. The fact that the explosive residue report was seized from investigators can be proven. It is likely that our own Navy is culpable and the crew never even knew about it save those close to the command decision maker who gave the order to fire.

Yeah you're right. Gov't reports are far more reliable than "conspiracy whacknutz".

Of course the problem with your logic there is the fact that those coming forward were members of the task force that made the official report and are not touting a conspiracy; they're merely pointing out what they believed the evidence supported.

JorgeI: For all I care it was some fat guy in row 30 lighting a fart. Normally I respect your posts, but please read what I said carefully. I really have no interest in whether a stinger COULD bring down the plane, all I'm saying is one of the theories.


The key here is a) why are these whistleblowers coming out now? and b) Assume it was brought down by malfeasance. The US says it was accidental and lets it drop. If so, I'd say we won that round.

Let's get a few things straight:

1) There has never been a single instance of a purposeful act resulting in death, injury, or destruction.

2) If there would ever be such an act (purely theoretical, since it has never happened, it never will), it would be the work of one lone nut.

3) The government has never, ever lied to us or misled us.

4) There is a time limit on interest and/or speculation concerning any event. This time limit may vary to some extent, but shall never exceed a day.

5) Anyone who would dispute any of the above is in serious need of professional help.

shaman: no disrespect to you RE: the Stinger, I just referenced it because folks were mentioning LAWs rockets, etc and I was just pointing out a STINGER is outside the realm of possibility. I apologize and I agree with the money issue you bring up.

EFW: screw what the gov't says but how about other folks (like say Rocky, Pugs or even me) that say otherwise?

Jorge the people in the report (and me too) declined to try and identify the external source of the explosion. They're merely asserting that it was in fact external and not internal. At least that was my understanding of the fox news report.

I don't doubt your knowledge of stinger missles and such. I'm just saying that that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the challenge to the report.

Anything beyond what these insiders are suggesting would seem to me to be, as you, Pugs, and Rocky have suggested, uninformed speculation.

Of course how much fun stuff would we have to argue about if we all stopped with our uninformed speculations?

Seems they didn't find Hoffa either today.....

The irony of this deal is that without the witnesses claiming to see a light streaking upward toward the plane BEFORE the explosion, the most likely explanation would be a bomb aboard the plane.

The scenario of an electrical short causing the crash would be a MUCH harder sell under those circumstances.

I've been inspecting aircraft for over 30 years. This is hardly the first time that an airframe, engine, or component with a storied reliability record developed a new problem. Aging aircraft are constantly developing unseen-before discrepancies, and they almost always develop into manufacturer's service bulletins when caught early enough, or in this case, Airworthiness Directives that ground an entire fleet until a fix is complied with.
Re: Aloha Airlines Flt. 243 B737 airframe failure and massive decompression, Alaska Airlines Flt 261 MD-83 tailplane jackscrew failure, to mention a couple....

I don't have unquestioning belief in the government, believe me.

BUT, in this case, the official explanation makes sense to anybody who knows anything about aviation and weaponry. Nothing put forward by the couch analysts does.

The reason these six guys are making these claims now is simple: money. They know that they face no repercussions for it. And they can always claim their "documentary" is for entertainment value only. It's no different than the occasional insider expos�s of Area 51: nothing but claims with no evidence.

And to answer the claim about tank levels: on that flight, the center wing tank was left empty because they didn't need all that fuel to cross the ocean and there was no sense carrying the extra weight. There were previous writeups about the fuel level sensor malfunctions in that tank. Commercial jets didn't then have foamed tanks to prevent flash explosions. So, combine a fuel/air mix, a source of electrical spark, and a lack of flash prevention and you get...boom.

Occam's Razor principle applies here: the simplest explanation is probably the truth. Non-existent missile not required.

Don't cornfuse the agenda with facts.
Billy 1997 TWA 800.
Hilly 2012 Benghazi.
Just runs in the family.

Commercial planes then did not have the nitrogen option, neither are they equipped with the sealant you mention like in the A-10. If you go back and read what he wrote, you can enlighten yourself of those facts. As to the Navy's involvement, while I won't go as far to rule out an exercise gone awry, you obviously have ZERO Navy experience. Such an incident would be impossible to keep quiet. Witness I was on board the USS Saratoga (CV 60) in 1992 when it accidentally hit a Turkish destroyer with a NATO Sea Sparrow. I can tell you there was no way to keep that a secret and finding out what Navy ships were in the area and their capabilites would be easy enough to find out, not to mention I take exception to your insinuation of the entire officer cadre on board a US Navy Ship would be complacent in a criminal act or coverup. But I see the fringers are coming out, and we even haven't seen TRH yet!

The documentary is coming out mid-July, hummmm

Why do I bother, a terrorist attack WOULD have been BENEFICIAL to klinton had he wished to play it that way, the exact opposite of Benghazi..