 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EnolaGaia Joined: 19 Jul 2004 Total posts: 1197 Location: USA Gender: Male |
 Posted: 19-06-2013 15:03 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Quote: |
TWA Flight 800 Investigators Claim the Official Crash Story Is a Lie
By Dashiell Bennett | The Atlantic Wire
A new film claims the official government report on the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996 is an elaborate fabrication, but the most shocking part of the story is that charges are being leveled by some of the very investigators who put the report together. Six experts who appear in the film were members of the National Transportation Safety Board investigation team that concluded the crash was an accident, but they now claim they were silenced by their superiors. The movies, "TWA Flight 800" will debut on EPIX TV next month, on the 17-year anniversary of the crash.
TWA Flight 800 was en route from JFK Airport in New York to Paris, France, when it exploded and crashed off the coast of Long Island, killing all 230 people on board. From the very beginning, there were some who speculated that the plane was the victim of a terrorist attack, leading the FBI to conduct its own criminal investigation. Among the possibilities that were suggested as the cause were a bomb in the cargo hold, or an anti-aircraft missile. Several witnesses even claimed they saw an object or streak of light that looked liked a missile or rocket moving toward the plane before it exploded.
The final NTSB reported said that faulty wiring connected to a central fuel tank caused a blast that destroyed the fuesalage, however, there were still many skeptics and conspiracy theorists who have long doubted that official story. In one particularly famous example, Pierre Salinger, a former Press Secretary for President John Kennedy and reporter for ABC News, claimed he'd seen proof that the U.S. Navy shot down the plane and then covered it up.
Now, those theories are likely to get a new airing, thanks to accident investigators who worked on the TWA 800 case, but say they were not allowed to speak up at the time of the official report. The experts include NTSB and TWA accident investigators, who say they are only able to speak up now that they are retired. According their statements in the film, they believe the official explanation is wrong and the damage was caused by an explosion that came from outside the plane.
The filmmakers won't speculate on what could have caused such an explosion, and haven't yet offered up evidence to support their theory (you'll have to watch on July 17), but they are asking the NTSB to re-open the investigation. Whether or not that happens, or even if a follow-up reaches the same conclusions as the original, this new film will ensure that the alternate theories and claims up a cover will probably never be put to rest.
SOURCE: http://news.yahoo.com/twa-flight-800-investigators-claim-official-crash-story-120157562.html
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| ChrisBoardman Great Old One Joined: 17 May 2011 Total posts: 516 Location: Alton, Hampshire Gender: Male |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ChrisBoardman Great Old One Joined: 17 May 2011 Total posts: 516 Location: Alton, Hampshire Gender: Male |
| Posted: 19-06-2013 15:22 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| The problem with this conspiracy theory is that I can't see boeing accepting the official version of events if they can't recreate it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Analis Great Old One Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Total posts: 838 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 31-07-2013 14:38 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Personally, I don't see Boeing stating publicly that they don't accept the official version of events. They rely on military contracts, they are themselves an important part of the militaro-industrial complex, and they're 'patriots'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Gwenar Grey Joined: 14 Nov 2012 Total posts: 25 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 31-07-2013 15:29 Post subject: |
|
|
|
I don't know about the "patriots" part, but they are the 'industry' in the military industrial complex. As someone who used to work in contracts at an aerospace firm, I can tell you that the military buys what Boeing wants to sell, not the other way around.
It's a weird relationship, the very definition of corporate welfare. Whenever anyone wants to cut spending on the Boeing airplanes that no one wants, the debate becomes "But... jobs!" And then becomes "But... defense!"
The military industrial complex is the huge white elephant suffocating the federal budget. It might look solid, but it's cheap plaster that attracts rats... Sorry, read Citizens years ago and have never gotten the description of the Elephant of the Bastille out of my head.
I don't know about the conspiracy, but Boeing and the military are so co-dependent I wouldn't count on one ratting the other out unless the stakes were either really high or really low. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ChrisBoardman Great Old One Joined: 17 May 2011 Total posts: 516 Location: Alton, Hampshire Gender: Male |
| Posted: 31-07-2013 16:25 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Analis wrote: | | Personally, I don't see Boeing stating publicly that they don't accept the official version of events. They rely on military contracts, they are themselves an important part of the militaro-industrial complex, and they're 'patriots'. |
I think the USA military use Lockheed, not boeing. Boeing are purely passenger airplanes these days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Gwenar Grey Joined: 14 Nov 2012 Total posts: 25 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 01-08-2013 11:31 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Boeing was still very much in the game as of 6 years ago. Things may have changed. But, remember, the military needs transport as much as they need fighter planes.
Everyone was experimenting with making things lighter without much success back then, and Boeing was still flush with cash and asking for lighter and lighter parts to put on their planes. Lots of money was thrown at the problem of how to make things weigh less but remain functional with wear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Zilch5 Vogon Poet
Great Old One Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Total posts: 1463 Location: Western Sydney, Australia Gender: Male |
| Posted: 01-08-2013 23:06 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ChrisBoardman wrote: | | Analis wrote: | | Personally, I don't see Boeing stating publicly that they don't accept the official version of events. They rely on military contracts, they are themselves an important part of the militaro-industrial complex, and they're 'patriots'. |
I think the USA military use Lockheed, not boeing. Boeing are purely passenger airplanes these days. |
The US military doesn't use Boeing anymore - but many others sure do. The Boeing Defence website lists Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Israel, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Middle East, Russia, Spain and the UK. That's not exactly civil aircraft only. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Analis Great Old One Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Total posts: 838 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 02-08-2013 14:39 Post subject: |
|
|
|
While Boeing's involvment with the US military has slowed down in recent years (they were notably involved in a number of cancelled projects), it has not completely ended.
Boeing was one of the co-contractors for the development of YF22 fighter jet. It is also the furnisher of AWACS planes. The needs of the US armed forces for these products are currently fulfilled, but it may change in the future. Boeing is also one of the developers of the Tomahawk missiles, whom the US military and the CIA are in constant need of. A s recently as February 2011, they received a contract for 179 KC-46 U.S. Air Force tankers at a value of $35 billions.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41766812/ns/business-consumer_news/#.UfuzXm3FlBA
They have also a number of future projets they will try to get the US military involved in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
