airdisaster.info

Someone is creating buzz for an upcoming television program.


(CNN) -- An unreleased documentary on the 1996 TWA Flight 800 explosion offers "solid proof that there was an external detonation," its co-producer said Wednesday.

* * *

The film's producers are submitting a petition -- signed by "many" former investigators -- asking for the National Transportation Safety Board to reopen its investigation, based on new evidence offered by the documentary, Stalcup said.

* * *
Skeptics have long theorized that TWA Flight 800 was brought down by sinister forces. They include Hank Hughes, who served as a senior accident investigator with the NTSB and helped reconstruct the aircraft. Others include Bob Young, a TWA investigator who participated in the investigation, and Jim Speer, an accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association.

"These investigators were not allowed to speak to the public or refute any comments made by their superiors and/or NTSB and FBI officials about their work at the time of the official investigation," a news release announcing the documentary said.

"They waited until after retirement to reveal how the official conclusion by the (NTSB) was falsified and lay out their case."
The documentary, "TWA Flight 800," will premiere July 17, the 17th anniversary of the crash.

* * *

The documentarians said they have a "trifecta of elements" that will "prove that the officially proposed fuel-air explosion did not cause the crash." That trifecta includes forensic evidence, firsthand sources and corroborating witnesses, and the new statements from retired investigators.

The evidence proves that "one or more ordnance explosions outside the aircraft caused the crash," the producers said. But it does not identify or speculate on the source of the ordnance explosions.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/us/twa-crash-claim/

The documentarians said they have a "trifecta of elements" that will "prove that the officially proposed fuel-air explosion did not cause the crash."... The evidence proves that "one or more ordnance explosions outside the aircraft caused the crash," the producers said.

If you are going to refute something, I guess I'd like to see better word choice. Seem's pretty darn irrefutable that the center tank (a lot of air and kerosene fumes) blew up and that caused the crash...

Now, as to what ignited the tank...and how does a "little" missle hole compare to what happens when the kerosene lights up...sure, I'll listen...

But let's get our facts/word choice straight...because we found frayed wires, the officials suspect that a little spark ignited the thing...heck, I guess someone could have discharged a pistol through the floor too...

I remember Al Weaver's posts on this subject and his careful explanations about the absence of evidence of explosive residue or missile parts and how difficult it would have been to hide such evidence. Impossible in his view.

The theory that a nearby explosion could have been the cause would be difficult to disprove since fragments could have penetrated the fuselage and tank without leaving residue and then expelled in the subsequent explosion. The official report went along the lines that the frayed wires was the most likely cause (if I remember correctly) which of course always leaves the door open for the usual conspiracy theorists, but investigators themselves??

Will be interesting to see what their evidence is.

New theory there: uncontained engine failure. (I didn't read the post yet.)
Discuss.

New theory there: uncontained engine failure. (I didn't read the post yet.)
Discuss.

The most important of the post in question is that the author was visited by two men who told him to knock it off.

You're welcome.

New theory there: uncontained engine failure. (I didn't read the post yet.)
Discuss.

The most important of the post in question is that the author was visited by two men who told him to knock it off.

You're welcome.

...that and a rapidly growing number of separate threads and posts, basically on the subject.

The random spark, albeit plausible, will forever be something of a reach.

Nevertheless, I'm thinking the engines got a clean bill of health and can think of no reason (other than a massive engine-maker conspiracy to transfer blame to Boeing), for the investigators to botch OR cover up evidence of fan blade excursions.

Not nearly as tin-foil-sexy as a missile!

Of course, Bobby maintains there was no evidence of a rapid, outward expansion of the fuel tank...

New theory there: uncontained engine failure. (I didn't read the post yet.)
Discuss.

The most important of the post in question is that the author was visited by two men who told him to knock it off.

You're welcome.

Thanks.
There's no mention of them being dressed in black with dark glasses, so I'm a bit skeptical (but still keeping the tinfoil roll at hand, just in case).

It seems that this wo/man is investigating total air disasters since at least 1958!
We also learn that turbines are exploding and total-air-disastering planes and killing a bunch of people with total impunity since the dawn of mankind. What are we waiting for to ban them?
Are engine detachments due to metal fatigue of the pylons considered uncontained failures? I thought the term was reserved for engines ejecting their innards... (Honest question)

A contained engine failure is that where no internal component of the engine leave the engine except through the tailpipe. So no, a whole-engine separation is not an uncontained engine failure in itself. It can cause or be caused by an uncontained engine failure though.

A contained engine failure is that where no internal component of the engine leave the engine except through the tailpipe. So no, a whole-engine separation is not an uncontained engine failure in itself. It can cause or be caused by an uncontained engine failure though.

Thanks

What are we waiting for to ban them?

For Evan to get elected to public office?