News: TWA 800: I've always believed this, too...

If this is true, then everyone actively involved needs to make an accounting in court on some type of charges.

 

was there a grassy noll involved??

Or was it filmed in a sound studio and not on the moon?

People grasp to these coverups or conspiracy theories.

Being a 1/2hr from the place where a large number of the passengers were from I would think they would be clamouring a lot more if they bought into this latest conspiracy theory....

 

And I was beginning to think that Oliver Stone was running out of ideas.

 

Not everything is a paranoid conspiracy theory. Some are, some arn't. Most of us will never know which are and arn't.

I'm personally convinced that there are many things that go on that do not get reported on. The AFB called Area 51 is a good example of this.

 

Somethings would be against our best interest if we knew.

TOP SECRET for example.

B1 Bomber before it was out and still in special hangars.

make up of different covert special forces

Our Press opens their mouth to the world enough as it is.
Heck you want to plan a war or a terrorist act against the US just listen to our nightly news...

 

I do believe in the grassy knoll theory.
Which is not conclusive by any means.

All these years later, things are finally starting to come out, as reported on the History Channel.
Think about that: "reported" on the History Channel. The History Channel is an envertainment station, not a news station.

Like how the body was removed from one side of the plane while the general public / TV cameras viewed an empty casket coming off the plane on the other side. Stuff like that.
Which cannot be corroborrated, since reliable eyewitness saw this, and since no one can explain how a second casket got on board in the first place. Except for Johnny Cochrane, maybe.

Things like the messed up medical examination and why it wasn't done by certified pathologists, etc.
Which was not a medical examination. They were attempting a life saving procedure, not a medical examination.

Our government covers up many things.
Which does not equate to conspiracy, folks. For a government that we say is so lousy in doing anything right, they sure seem to be doing a good job with "conspiracies". I suppose you're going to tell me the government covered up evidence of aliens on Mars, too.

There are people on this board who don't believe a One World Government is coming, either, even though Bible prophecy says there will be a One World Government and Religion.
Yes, Hal Lindsay said it. I categorically tend to dismiss anything he says. I prefer to live as Jesus said: Don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself.

BTW - since when is a site on angelfire.com that's put together in someone's garage worthy of us discussing this kind of tripe on the board?

[ January 23, 2003, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

another conspiracy theory sheeagle?

what with AIDS being transferred by air, Muslims moving to USA to take over, Mexicans trying to take over California and Bill Clinton being in league with the Chinese to conquer America I would have thought you already had your hands full?

 

Life saving procedure all the way from Parkland Hospital??????
Parlkand Hospital was the closest hospital to the assasination site. According to multiple reports, including JFK's own opituary, life saving procedures were attempted for at east 40 minutes before he was pronounced dead. The autopsy was conducted later at Bethesda in Maryland.

I made reference to the Bible, not Hal Lindsay.
I disagree with your literal interpretation. Nothing wrong with either your view or mine, we simply disagree. But what the Bible has to do with flight 800 is beyond me.

The Angelfire page is a collection of different references. Did you even bother to check it out?
Yes. Many of the links don't work. Some are to conspiracy and propaganda sites.

Why is it inconceivable that a missle could have shot TWA 800 out of the sky?
Because the evidence didn't support it. There's no evidence of penetration of an object from the outside. While there's some evidence of residue in some parts that are consistent with missile fire, the location of the residue shows no penetration evidence. Plus, the fact that the residue in question could easily be explained by a multitude of other sources. Ballistic models consinually support explosion originating from fumes built up in the fuel storage tanks. Don't you think that, if this were a terrorist attack, the US would have jumped all over it as a justified reason to go to war?

Where are all your links to refute my comments? The tripe comment was unnecessary, denigrating, and offensive, BTW. Perhaps you would like to edit your remarks?
I found no support for your comments in the first place. You're engaging in yellow journalism. You're making it sound like World Net Daily is reporting on an FBI coverup. Nothing could be further from the truth. World Net Daily is reporting on the release of a book called "First Strike", which alleges a coverup. (Hmmm... a book that alleges a coverup to sell books. Oh, like that's never happenned before!)

[ January 23, 2003, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

I was watching TV when the first reports about this were broadcast. In every one of the initial reports, the eyewitnesses interviewed said that they saw something "streaking up from the ground toward the plane".

There was also mentioned in every initial report something about a military vessel in the vicinity at the time.

The impression that I had at the time was that it was an accidental live-firing of a missle.

 

There were some who saw a trail, and some who didn't. Believe me, I thought the same thing as you. I'd have to dig up the info, but I remember the conclusion being that it was an ignited vapor trail, which they've been able to reproduce in controlled reinactments.

One of the things that made me agree with the conclusions is this: If you're using a heat seeking device, it's going to go for an area of exhaust, like an engine. But the point of explosion in this case was the empty area of the fuel tank, just below the center of the fuselage, inconsistent with a heat seeking missile firing, but consistent with vapor ignition.

[ January 23, 2003, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Speaking of the grassy knoll, have any of you ever been there? I have. I'm not saying Oswald couldn't have gotten a head shot off from the window where he was allegedly at, and that on a moving target several hundred yards away, but if he did he was certainly one of the best marksmen in the world.

Russ <><

 

I feel that this is a valid topic and there have been a few decent responces, as to the others I suggest that everyone look closely at their snide remarks and consider doing some self editing. I also request that we all understand that this is a news forum not the saturday night fights.
Murph

 

Not all missles use this method of targetting. Many use none, others use laser guidance which is quickly becoming the method of choice.

Also, there was a report about a brown substance found on some of the seats that were in the "blast zone". It has been claimed that is substance is consistent with materials used in high explosives.

Does anyone else recall hearing this report?

 

With just a short search on the web, I brought up more than twenty sites supporting the cover-up of TWA 800. It's not just an "angelfire" thing.

There are some interesting facts pointed out in the news that seem valid, in light of what we know about terrorism and Clinton today.

 

Speaking of the grassy knoll, have any of you ever been there? I have.

I have not been there, but my brothers have. They both feel that it would have been possible to have a "clean shoot" from there, but, since there were so many people there, a shot from that location would not have gone unnoticed. Plus, if you miss, you end up hitting someone in the crowd.

Additionally, if you look at the Zapruder film, you'll clearly see that the head wound is a large exit wound at the front of the president's head. Were it a shot from the front, the large wound would be at the rear, not the front.

 

Also, there was a report about a brown substance found on some of the seats that were in the "blast zone". It has been claimed that is substance is consistent with materials used in high explosives.

Yes, I had read this. The conclusion of the substance was that it tested "borderline positive". It would have been consistent with, for example, a bomb in a suitcase, which would rule out the missile theory alltogether. However, it remains that the epicenter of the blast zone was not the luggage compartment, but the upper zone of the fuel tank. Not the lower zone where liquid fuel was present, but the upper zone where fumes would have been.

[ January 24, 2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]