TWA flight 800 -- U.S. Government Lies to the Public -- AGAINgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread
TWA flight 800 was brought down by a "Stinger" (or "Stinger" type) missile. The explosion and crash was NOT due to a "spark" in the fuel tank.
SCORES of witnesses assert it was a missile. The Associated Retired Aviation Professionals http://www.twa800.com and other related INDEPENDENT (of government) professionals and groups insist that the initial damage was not cause by an internal explosion but externally (the fuel explosion happening AFTER the initial external missile strike).
Why the government coverup? Government would have to admit it can't really protect you (all it can do is mop up after, and harasss you, in general).
Why is Boeing taking the fall? It is now a big military contractor. If it doesn't play along, Lockheed Martin and whoever else is left will get the contracts.
You can blame it on Clinton or the Clinton administration. But it goes deeper than that. Bush (either), Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover ... all of them, and their administrations have lied to you about whatever du jour.
You keep voting for criminals, you'll keep getting criminals to vote for. If you are going to bother to vote (a futile exercise) at least vote third party.
-- A (A@AisA.com), August 31, 2000
Agree with you about everything except Boeing. Boeing isn't taking a fall, it is just being set up. Too many humungous lawsuits out there for Boeing to willingly bend over. Good discussion last night on coast-to-coast-am.
-- too bad (email@example.com), August 31, 2000.
This is an absolute crock of bull. TWA 800 was a former Imperial Iranian Air Force plane. She never had the center fuel tank fix mandated for civilian 747's. Another IIAF 747 crashed in Spain from an identical explosion. Do you believe that terrorists have been following these ex-IIAF aircraft around shooting them down? The real safety issue here is that ex-military aircraft, which are not subject to the same overview as commercial transport aircraft, are allowed to be put in civilian service without meeting the airworthiness directives that other aircraft of the same model have to meet. TWA 800 went down because she was never fixed, just as her sistership went down 10 years before her. You'd be doing the public a greater service lobbying to change the requirements of military to civilian aircraft conversions than continuing to pursue this ridiculous missile theory.
-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), September 01, 2000.
Jimbo, the problem with your version is it doesn't fit the facts. Not even close.
-- Not (the.@Jim.bo), September 01, 2000.
**Do you believe that terrorists have been following these ex-IIAF aircraft around shooting them down?**
Jim, what I think he's saying is that the MILITARY mistakenly shot down the aircraft and is now covering for it.
-- cin (cin@=0).cin), September 01, 2000.
Cooke: The why is the proven liar U.S. government saying that ALL that type of plane are at risk for "wiring problems"?
-- A (A@AisA.com), September 01, 2000.
I have no idea what your answer is supposed to mean. The defective wiring in the center fuel tanks was corrected after an airworthiness directive issued in the late 70's as a direct result of the IIAF 747 crash in Spain. The TWA 747 never got the modification because it was owned by the IIAF at the time and the military doesn't have to meet the same airworthiness directives as commercial transport. This is what caused the explosion aboard TWA 800, not a missile.
I realize that you think ANYTHING the government says is a lie but the number of people that would have to be involved in this coverup is enormous. How can you believe that this giantic conspiracy can be kept under wraps when Clinton couldn't even keep his little slips with Monica a secret?
-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), September 02, 2000.
Before they tape my mouth. Stinger. missile. Stinger. missile.
Read enough. I believe. They believe. Shoot me down, all you want.
-- Oxy (Oxsys@aol.com), September 02, 2000.
Cooke: My statement was clear enough. The government says wiring in ALL those planes is a potential problem. Right now. Today. If it was corrected in all but that one plane, x years ago, why are they saying all the ones supposedly fixed are problematical, instead of being a problem with just one?
The Monica thing was about SEX. Not about "boring" engineering and conspiracy stuff. The public understands cocksucking but not fuel flashpoints and missile ranges. So like many other events of IMPORTANCE, many people have come forward on this, and it is not reported in major media, and if it does, the sports and Monica stories get read, instead.
-- A (A@AisA.com), September 02, 2000.
I just saw an interesting TV show about the recently recognized danger of airline wiring that has Kapton insulation. Kapton, originally touted as a miracle insulation material (70s, early 80s), is very tough and light-weight (ideal for an aviation environment). One little problem has slowly been revealed--Kapton can crack over time. Worse, when it cracks and if the bare wires short, the resulting spark converts the Kapton into a flaming conductor, no longer an insulator.
New planes, commercial or military, no longer use Kapton. But many older planes in service do have Kapton insulated wires. There are hundreds of miles of wiring in every plane. Wiring bundles are innaccessible and re-wiring is impossible.
This is not as exciting as a Stinger missile scenario but just as spooky and just as prone to conspiracy theories.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 02, 2000.