Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "Witnessed: The Crash of TWA Flight 800 (2014)" video.

  1. Fred Meyer, whom you refer to, told the authorities he saw a streak of light, then almost immediately a fireball which fell to the water in some 10 seconds. This supports the streak being a late stage event. He later decided to repudiate his own testimony because it didn't support his conviction he saw ordnance. While he states he has seen ordnance before, he does not say he ever saw a commercial airliner explode before. So how does he know that might not also resemble ordnance? "mach 1.5+ radar returns" might well be the most powerful case for a missile. The NTSB did take up this claim, questioning "the quality of the radar data representing this debris by citing information such as ½ nautical mile “scatter” between multiple FAA radar facilities. " This prompted a rebuttal by Tom Stalcup which to me demonstrates the futility of non-trained nonspecialists being able to figure all this out. Without a neutral platform to judge both sides, I cannot accept this argument as beyond reasonable doubt. Can you?
    7
  2. I don't think so necessarily. In these parts, yes. But most people I know have forgotten about the crash, but still remember TWA very well, at least for the over 50 crowd.
    6
  3. You are absolutely right, as William Tobin's sworn testimony reveals. That's the irony of the missile brigade. In fact, far from covering up, they were literally dying to find the smoking gun so they could take control of the investigation. Kallstrom himself had already planned to make an announcement of this to the media when Tobin put his foot down. That was one of the most dramatic reads I have come across in aviation crash land.
    6
  4. I believe they were.
    4
  5. But it just may be the Navy missile theory is in fact wrong.
    4
  6. The reason to doubt him is that no one seems to have ever recorded it, despite it being on national TV.
    3
  7. There's only one bigger liar than CNN, and that's Donald. Let us hope his claim to terminate the constitution is one of those lies.
    2
  8. To an extent maybe. I more or less accept the NTSB's verdict, but the case for a missile is not nearly as crackpot as the so-called truth mvt. One is within the realm of respectable debate. The other is pure nuts.
    2
  9. It's not certain once you reveal the flaws in the missile theory.
    1
  10.  @PartyExpress-  But Elvis did.
    1
  11. Hey, they only make half the world's planes.
    1
  12. They did get the airplane parts out at Shanksville. They just didn't give us a pictorial record of it. Flight 93 is the crowning failure of 911 Truth. They would have us believe that 44 extra deaths in the middle of nowhere was essential for the War on T, and Ira-, and so on. What a mentally disordered joke. Or even more absurd, we "needed some heroes." To the contrary, the goal of T is to scare everyone completely to death, not create optimism. If you want the best example of an airplane swallowed whole, look at Ethiopian flight 302 PRE_EXCAVATION photos. cheers, and go shopping for a new brain.
    1
  13. I think the two are completely unrelated. The main reason for the alleged cover-up, if there was one, is to protect the US Navy, not scaring the public.
    1
  14.  @Steve-pk9ok  I personally lean more towards the NTSB report, so that would not surprise me.
    1
  15. I think so many flights have been in high heat situations so many times that there really was no major red flag. Of the very few CWT events on record, this was the only one related to an ac pack.
    1
  16. As is Trump, and annoying Youtube posters. They amount to zilch.
    1
  17. It's all very much open to speculation. No real proof.
    1
  18. But that doesn't mean they did.
    1
  19.  @robshef718  No, but pretty close. It was somewhere near Dulles, Manassas? I saw it about 2005? maybe, at a special presentation, and we were allowed in to the view it. No pics allowed but one of us took some anyway.
    1
  20. Why would you want to vote for a man who has called for "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution." He wants to terminate our constitution. He thinks he has the right to be dictator. That's 10 times more corrupt and lunatic than anything any other president has said in history. And all because he can't accept his legitimate loss like a man.
    1
  21. The thing I learned about NTSB investigators is that they will not be silenced, witness Hank Hughes. They would all have come out like him if this were true.
    1
  22. Because the streaks of light may not have been a missile, but an omnidirectional explosion where streamers of fuel blasted in all directions at the beginning of the main fireball. Note how different people reported different angles, such as pilot Fed Meyer, who saw a slightly descending streak, for example.
    1
  23. ​ @Snookbite24  The NTSB is tasked with "probable cause," not absolute proof. I agree with their verdict. A missile would’ve collapsed one side on impact and expanded outward for the rest of the tank. " Not if a close proximity detonation. The China Lake study, part of the official investigation, could not rule this out absolutely. Maybe you could, but they didn't. As to Navy missile tests, last year a Boston judge refused to dismiss a suit brought by family members, based on new FOIA requests documents received by Tom Stalcup. Here is the judge's response: “This evidence reveals that the United States and its agencies, acting in concert with Contractor Defendants, conducted initial operational tests of the SPY-ID(V) radar upgrade with testing that involved firing at least one missile with a live warhead in May of 1996…,” Kelley wrote. “Instead of conducting testing away from potential flight paths of other aircrafts, SPY-ID(V) was tested on an expedited basis in and around a land-based testing site called the Combat Systems Engineering and Development Site (‘CSEDS’) in New Jersey, which is a highly congested area.” Given all of this, my position is well within the bounds of sensible judgement. cheers
    1
  24. Not if you've seen the counter evidence.
    1
  25. Governments are indeed liars. Look at the Trump government. But then, so are brainless CTists witness the birthers, Mike Lindell , and the 91-- truth movement. Of course 45 is a walking CT in and of himself.
    1
  26. And the FBI never took over the investigation. They were desperate to do so, as they were convinced for a long time it was a b-mb. But finally they proved it most likely wasn't.
    1
  27.  @walkingman9171  But they didn't. In fact, they were dying to declare it a bomb. Jim Kallstrom was all dressed up for a media conference to announce this, until common sense prevailed. See William Tobin's sworn testimony. Very dramatic reading.
    1
  28. "who wouldn't": Anyone who looks at the big picture and realizes flying is FAR safer than driving. You cannot judge safety on the basis of ONE crash. Shouldn't that be obvious?
    1
  29.  @amirhassanmonajemi9573  I'm going to look that up right now.
    1
  30.  @amirhassanmonajemi9573  Hmm, not getting that so far. In the final report I have open now, it says there was 300 lbs of fuel in the CWT when it departed JFK. The CWT capacity itself is 86,000 lbs, which means it was less than 1 % full. Let me know where you might have seen that figures.
    1
  31.  @amirhassanmonajemi9573  "it was 3000lbs means 4 to 5% not more" It states clearly in the report in 3 places, 300 lbs, not 3000. If you have a direct quote that says otherwise, please cite it. 300 is not even 1% full. There have been other CWT events, although on the ground. I can cite at least 4, PAL 1990, THAI, Air Canada 1982 exploded during maintenance, and Bangalore in 2006. So rare, but not unprecedented. There was also Iranian 747 (1977?), though instigated by a lightening strike. The estimated frequency is something like 1 in 150 million flights Finally The fact they are now required to inert the fuel with I believe nitrogen, shows they consider it a real hazard.
    1
  32.  @amirhassanmonajemi9573  Sorry to have replied twice. Lately my messages seem to keep disappearing and then reappearing. Thank you. Your comments are also within reason. One other point, if I didn't say this already. William Tobin's sworn testimony is an absolute must read. Jim Kallstrom was on the verge of declaring it a bom- to the media until Tobin stopped him. Some of the most dramatic commentary I've ever read. Far from a cover-up, he explains how the FBI was absolutely convinced it was sabotage. I think terrorism is much less likely than friendly fire. There was no attempt, for example to cover-up the Lockerbie bomb. So why would there be such a different reaction here? Speaking of which, I think actually the strongest case for a major coverup is Pan Am 103. The evidence that Iran was behind it is increasingly more convincing to me than the official narrative. Thank you for a nice back and forth.
    1
  33.  @amirhassanmonajemi9573  I just replied and it seems to be deleted !! [edit], thankfully I'm wrong, it stuck after all. This crazy site should be fined big time for massive disregard of customer service.
    1
  34.  @amirhassanmonajemi9573  I believe the witnesses as a whole. But the problem is there observations don't correlate very well with the known timetable of the break up and ensuing fireball. One example is Fred Meyer, whose official witness description stated that the fireball took just 10 seconds to fall to the sea below. That supports a late stage event.
    1
  35. Crime is out of control, America is pathetic. But there was no stolen election. And the fact you can't find even a scrap of proof shows that Lunatic Trump is part of the problem. He loves lies. And violence.
    1
  36. Possible, but if you do all the digging, you might find that the missile people do not have an airtight case either.
    1
  37. Is that part of the FOIA request that finally was released last year?
    1
  38. The evidence may seem overwhelming until you do some detective work. I'll give you a hint. Fred Meyer's official witness statements indicate the fireball took just 10 seconds to reach the water.
    1
  39.  @amirhassanmonajemi9573  A good argument, but not fool proof. The events are rare but not totally without precedent. The FAA came up with a "list of 26 fuel-tank explosions dating back to 1959." The only unique thing about 800 is that it was the only one that was not result of an external catalyst (if you believe the official report.) Examples include The Thai airways 737 ground explosion -Air Canada DC-9 exploded in a maintenance hanger. -"2006, the wing tank of a Boeing 727 exploded on the ground in Bangalore, India." if there was no risk, why have the authorities now made safety measures mandatory: "A final rule was enacted by in 2008, and 100 percent compliance with the rule became mandatory on December 26th of 2017" These rules have lead to both Airbus and Boeing adding safeguards against the hazard.
    1
  40.  @amirhassanmonajemi9573  "SAM missile that penetrated the fuel tank near the wing root." I don't think it can be ruled out. But then, what are the odds of a US airliner being shot down by the US Navy? It has never happened before either.
    1
  41. This is spot on. The zoom climb never happened. However, I believe its purpose was to close the lid on all the CT mongering, as by that time they had a credibility issue. It was not necessarily because of a cover-up.
    1
  42.  @vokqe  I vote against missile. But I don't recall any perfectly cut circles. And also, a missile doesn't preclude a CWT explosion. The best missile theory states that is what caused it.
    1
  43. Finally, both Airbus and Boeing have added fuel inerting to their planes to make a repeat event less likely. It's actually an FAA mandate in the US.
    1