Comments by "Sean" (@sean2015) on "Investigator: New TWA theory 'bull crap'" video.

@Junior Johnson he just died a few weeks ago, only a few days shy of the 25th anniversary of the disaster
6
Exactly. They actually brought up the point that it was a very warm evening at Kennedy. Like…yeah? Planes take off and land in Phoenix when it’s 110F.
3
@roquefortfiles what is there to read? You expect us to believe the NTSB and FBI’s version that an airplane could self-destruct like that?
1
@roquefortfiles so you actually believe this bogus theory about a couple of metal wires chafing and producing a spark? Meanwhile you believe that hundreds of witnesses on the ground were simply having hallucinations when they saw a reddish-orange flare in the same area as the 747? (or let me guess…it wasn’t a flare, it was a shooting star) 🌠
1
@roquefortfiles short circuits do not bring down a jumbo jet, my God you can’t be that dense. The pilot who flew the TWA jet from Athens to New York on its very last leg testified that he tested the fuel tank on that day and said it was in great shape and could not have exploded. Are you also willing to disregard… 1) the bomb residue found on the backs of certain seats and on some of the passengers’ bodies? (Which the gubmint alternately claimed was glue, then admitted it was a sample amount of bomb residue for training bomb-sniffing dogs? Yeah right!) 2) radar tapes which showed an unidentified blip merging with flight 800 the instant before it broke apart in mid-air? 3) the fact that the Navy was the first on the scene (despite the fact that the U.S. military has no jurisdiction in a civilian air crash) and blocked access by the NTSB’s “go team” for the first hours after the explosion? 4) the fact that the Navy admitted that a MOA (military operations area, clearly marked on aeronautical charts) off Long Island was active on the night of the tragedy. 5) the suspicious behavior of the Navy including conducting an extensive search of a radius that was far beyond the gliding capabilities of the stricken jet and well outside the known wreckage area? 6) the testimony of Pierre Salinger that the father of a sailor told him his son had confessed that the Navy had shot down the airliner 7) contradictions by Jim Kallstrom who initially denied there were any Navy ships in the area where Flight 800 exploded and was later caught on tape saying there were in fact THREE such ships ? 8) former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Thomas Moorer saying that all the evidence indicated a missile strike 9) a senate subcommittee chaired by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) which released testimony that a bomb or missile had downed the plane and called the FBI investigation (the lengthiest and costliest in history at that time) a “model of failure”. 10. The FBI (led by Kallstrom) preventing the testimony of nearly 400 witnesses (all with nearly identical accounts) who said they saw a flare or missile in the air in the same area as and at the exact time as the 747 went down. You weren’t there that night - nor was I. That’s why when close to 400 witnesses say they saw something, I absolutely believe them.
1
@roquefortfiles ”You’re on glue” …lol, speaking of “glue”…read my prior comment 😂😂😂
1
@roquefortfiles I’ll say it one more time: 400 eyewitnesses. Four hundred.
1
@roquefortfiles FACT: some of the bodies and seats had explosive residue on them. And did I forget to mention close to 400 witnesses?
1
@roquefortfiles I don’t like reading fiction 📖
1
 @roquefortfiles what you just wrote is 100% correct. Even if not for the reasons you may think.
1
@mkailov13 SwissAir 111 caught fire; it didn’t instantly self-destruct. As many as 600 witnesses reported seeing the same thing: a flare or missile-like object streaking upwards towards Flight 800 right before it exploded. Not six …not sixty… six hundred . Six people can easily make a mistake, or they can lie if there is collusion. But not 600. If 600 people said they saw Elvis Presley in the bread aisle at their local Walmart, then that’s the way of it, end of discussion. You were not there that night, so don’t go Jim Kallstrom and start saying ”Nah they didn’t see a missile, their eyesight isn’t good enough” or ”They didn’t see a missile, it was a shooting star” …and don’t try to say they saw the flaming wreckage ascending. Some of those witnesses included National Guardsman and other veterans who are familiar enough with munitions to know the difference between a shooting star and a missile or flare.
1
@mkailov13 I've never heard of a plane exploding and breaking up in flight due to internal problems. If you take a look at all midair explosions involving aircraft, they were either due to missiles (Iran Air 655), lightning strikes (Pan Am 214) or a bomb (Pan Am 103). TWA 800 remains the only inflight aircraft accident in history whose official cause/explanation is simply given as "fuel tank explosion".
1
@mkailov13 Why not? Reassembling any aircraft wreckage is standard in any aviation disaster, both for investigative and training purposes. There is evidence that the Navy removed munitions from the seabed on the night of the crash in an attempt to orchestrate a cover up, however there is nothing about the wreckage itself that would've been incriminating to the U.S. military. The government's official explanation for the crash is that it was a fuel tank explosion, so if anything, reconstruction of the wreckage was essential to help them push their absurd narrative.
1
@mkailov13 no Zach. I did a research project on Flight 800 back in the summer of 1997. The missile that was being used (as part of a routine exercise by the Navy that evening) was inert and unarmed. Just one of those missiles can cost literally seven figures. So the military would not want to be having target practice costing them a million dollars a pop (makes sense when you think about it). The Navy was doing basically a high-tech clay shoot that night. They fire some type of munition and then fire an unarmed missile to test their systems' ability to accurately intercept it. They were doing this for God knows how long, right underneath the busy airspace of the northeastern US. I used to live in Massachusetts, heck I could've been a passenger on a flight flying through this missile are myself. This was also the reason why the Navy was the first on the scene and essentially commandeered the wreckage site. They had to scour the seabed to retrieve that missile, which would've dropped like a rock from the sky and into the ocean, after striking Flight 800. When the missile struck Flight 800, it punched a hole clean through the fuselage (possibly crushing some bodies as it did). Had it been a true armed missile, the aircraft would've exploded right then and there. Instead it took the fuel tank explosion to cause the 747 to snap in half midair.
1
@DoubleMonoLR no idea what you're talking about
1