Tag Archives: Mh17

TWA Flight 800

On the evening of July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800 took off from John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) bound for Paris with 230 people on board. About eleven minutes after the pilot announced, “Wheels up,” at 13,700 feet and climbing, without warning, the 747 jetliner exploded over the Atlantic Ocean, just off the shores of Rhode Island. A secondary explosion occurred when the jet fuel ignited.

Why am I bringing this up at this time? The world has had three significant “lost jet” events in the last several months. One of these jets, in Kiev, was shot down, and it reminded me of the tragedy of TWA Flight 800. So I went back and investigated.

As I state on my website, I “dare to find the real truth in history. History unlike anything you have been taught.”

Ultimately, about ninety-five percent of the Boeing 747 jet was recovered. According to the official report from the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB), it was concluded that the “probable cause” of the explosion of the center-wing fuel tank was the result of the ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture. They could not determine the exact source of the ignition, but felt that it “most likely” was a short circuit outside of the center-wing tank. They believe the event was brought on by excessive voltage entering the wiring associated with the fuel system. However, the NTSB report stated that the center-fuel switch was off, and there was no voice evidence it had been turned on. Would excessive voltage cause a switch that was turned off to ignite? A short circuit? I can’t answer that question, but perhaps an electrical engineer could. (If so, please post your comments below. I’d love to have your opinion!)

I remember that when I first heard about the plane crash, I heard about some eyewitness accounts that this jet was shot down. I dismissed it at the time. These witnesses stated seeing a “flare-like” object rising from the ground and striking the 747 jet on its right side. The number of eyewitness stories were consistent enough that the FBI interviewed 154 individuals, including scientists and Army personnel. It is significant that these witnesses covered the TWA 800 from viewing angles of 360 degrees. At the time, The New York Times reported that a top federal official was quoted as saying their stories “were credible.” Witnesses all collectively spoke of a six-second missile burn. This is quite a coincidence, don’t you think?Silhouette fedora

The cockpit voice recorder was not audible over the last seven seconds. However, the TWA captain said, “Look at that crazy fuel flow indicator there on number four. See that?” Sometime after that, the first officer noted a visually bright event. But in the last few tenths–of-seconds, on the voice recorder there was a similar noise like that of other planes that have broken up in flight.

Technicians from the FBI even mapped these eyewitness stories to corroborate if the incident would conclude a central point of the potential ground shot. There were some on-site investigators who claimed the metal remnants of the jet was bent in and bent out. Logically speaking, if it was an internal explosion, all of the metal should be bent outward, I would think. I could be wrong.

To my knowledge, no definitive explanation was ever given for “flare-like” object rising from the ground. No fireworks, no flare. Moreover, none of the eyewitnesses were allowed to speak at the NTSB public hearing. Why? It should be noted, the NTSB does not investigate criminal activity: that side of the investigation was carried out, as always, by the FBI, in a parallel investigation.

The Army and the Navy were called in to assist with this investigation. Army personnel in Humvees took over control of the beaches on Long Island. Why? I find it interesting that both the FBI and the Navy implied that there was biological danger surrounding Flight 800 and that any pieces found on the beach should not be touched. Later, this story was retracted. Why? Was it for collection purposes? No explanation was given either way.

While it is easy to understand why the Navy was first called into assist with the investigation, it seems a little unusual that the Navy brought in their best deep-water salvage vessels and took over the salvage operation from the New York Police Department divers. Why? Why did the Navy search twenty miles on either side of the wreckage scene? It would be impossible for the 747 jet to spread debris this far—a physical impossibility, even if the 747 had remained intact and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean. There were three Navy submarines and a Navy ship in the area; no big deal, since it is near New York Harbor. But why did the Navy try to deny their presence during that time?

By December 1996, the FBI Missile investigation team members were notified that two separate commercial fishermen had dredged up parts from MANDPADS in the area of the debris field; however, it is reported that they threw them back. Was this credible, or was this part of a conspiracy? Why would they have thrown these parts back?

There were so many inconsistencies with respect to the recovery and potential tampering with the 747’s black boxes that I cannot address them in a 500-word blog. I can’t decide what really happened. What do you think happened? Did the crash occur due to an equipment malfunction, or was it something else?