Filmmaker asserts new evidence on crash of TWA Flight 800; says there was an external explosion

[Cail]

An unreleased documentary on the 1996 TWA Flight 800 explosion offers "solid proof that there was an external detonation," its co-producer said Wednesday.

"Of course, everyone knows about the eyewitness statements, but we also have corroborating information from the radar data, and the radar data shows a(n) asymmetric explosion coming out of that plane -- something that didn't happen in the official theory," Tom Stalcup told CNN's "New Day."

A number of people have come forward, "all saying the same thing: that there was an external force -- not from the center wing tank, there's no evidence of that -- but there is evidence of an external explosion that brought down that plane," Stalcup said.

He cited "corroborating information from the radar data" and complained that "not one single eyewitness was allowed to testify -- that's unheard of."

The film's producers are submitting a petition -- signed by "many" former investigators -- asking for the National Transportation Safety Board to reopen its investigation, based on new evidence offered by the documentary, Stalcup said.

"The family members need to know what happened to their loved ones," he said.

Asked why such information might have been suppressed, he said, "That's a question that should be answered when this investigation gets reopened."

The NTSB ruled that the explosion was caused by an electrical short circuit, most likely originating in a fuel gauge line, which found its way into the center wing fuel tank, where it detonated fuel vapors and caused the B-747 to fall in pieces into the waters off Long Island.

Skeptics have long theorized that TWA Flight 800 was brought down by sinister forces.

They include Hank Hughes, who served as a senior accident investigator with the NTSB and helped reconstruct the aircraft. Others include Bob Young, a TWA investigator who participated in the investigation, and Jim Speer, an accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association.

"These investigators were not allowed to speak to the public or refute any comments made by their superiors and/or NTSB and FBI officials about their work at the time of the official investigation," a news release announcing the documentary said.

"They waited until after retirement to reveal how the official conclusion by the (NTSB) was falsified and lay out their case."

The documentary, "TWA Flight 800," will premiere July 17, the 17th anniversary of the crash.

Stalcup is co-founder of the Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization and has been a longtime and passionate critic of the official investigation.

Suspicions that criminals or terrorists were behind the TWA 800 explosion are not new. The FBI conducted a parallel investigation, but concluded that the incident was not a crime or terrorist attack.

The NTSB said Tuesday that it was aware of the pending release of the documentary, which will air on EPIX TV network, and of the producers' intent to file a petition to reopen the investigation.

"As required by NTSB regulation, a petition for reconsideration of board findings ... must be based on the discovery of NEW evidence or on a showing that the board's findings are erroneous," NTSB spokeswoman Kelly Nantel said in a statement. "At this point, the NTSB has not received a petition, however, we stand ready to review one, should it be filed."

Petitions are reviewed and a determination typically is made within 60 days, but the NTSB can take longer if necessary, she said. The safety board's investigation of TWA 800 lasted four years and "remains one of the NTSB's most extensive investigations," Nantel said.

Investigators "spent an enormous amount of time reviewing, documenting and analyzing facts and data, and held a five-day public hearing to gather additional facts before determining the probable cause of the accident," she said.

But her statement leaves open the possibility the case will be reopened.

"While the NTSB rarely re-investigates issues that have already been examined, our investigations are never closed, and we can review any new information not previously considered by board," it said.

The documentarians said they have a "trifecta of elements" that will "prove that the officially proposed fuel-air explosion did not cause the crash." That trifecta includes forensic evidence, firsthand sources and corroborating witnesses, and the new statements from retired investigators.

The evidence proves that "one or more ordnance explosions outside the aircraft caused the crash," the producers said. But it does not identify or speculate on the source of the ordnance explosions.

All 230 people aboard TWA 800 died when the plane, headed for Paris, exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean shortly after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. Scores of witnesses observed a streak of light and a fireball, giving early rise to suspicions that the terrorists had struck the plane with a rocket.

Investigators concluded the streak was likely burning fuel streaming from the plane's wing tank.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/us/twa...html?hpt=hp_t2

[ringthree]

As with so many conspiracy theories, what is the motivation for covering up anything?

[Cail]

Well, if it was a missile, then thats a huge fuckup and huge motivation for a coverup. Though, it doesnt seem as "conspiracy theory" as say 9/11 truthers or whatever

[ringthree]

Well, if it was a missile, then thats a huge fuckup and huge motivation for a coverup. Though, it doesnt seem as "conspiracy theory" as say 9/11 truthers or whatever

How is it a huge fuck-up? It would be an attack on the US. It's all smoking gun and no motivation.

[Blubbartron]

As with so many conspiracy theories, what is the motivation for covering up anything?

To win re-election. If people thought Clinton getting a BJ in office was bad, imagine how much they would've lost their goddamn minds over terrorists successfully using surface-to-air guided rockets to take down a passenger plane in US skies. Or even terrorists successfully attaching bombs to the exterior of an aircraft. The article isn't clear when they say "external explosions", but neither scenario is very good.

[Ksandra]

As with so many conspiracy theories, what is the motivation for covering up anything?

http://www.evolveinc.com/modules/evo...ns-98f63b.jpeg

[Tajin]

1996? Sounds like MOON LANDING TWA edition up in here.

[archibaldcrane]

To win re-election.

Attacks on the US have a very predictable "rally around the flag" effect. You don't suppress evidence of a foreign attack if you're hoping for a boost in support.

[ronin sparthos]

If terrorists shot down a jetliner prior to 9/11 why wouldn't they have claimed responsibility? Where are the jihadists jerking off to damaging 'Murica?

Did that get covered up to?

[chiyio]

"not one single eyewitness was allowed to testify -- that's unheard of." Good, eyewitness accounts are terrible.

[Acevalefor]

"not one single eyewitness was allowed to testify -- that's unheard of." Good, eyewitness accounts are terrible.

Every time I think of eyewitness accounts I see Monsters INC. "Then it picked me up with it's mind powers and shook me like a rag doll!". Pixar did such a great job of making fun media in that movie.

Funny cartoons aside, I am not convinced there is any reason to cover anything up regarding this explosion. Grasping at straws is fun though? Can anyone give me a plausible scenario where a coverup would be needed without all the conspiracy plot holes?

[Cail]

I remember hearing around the time it happened, there was a theory it was a navy missile. Granted, I was 11 when it happened, but I still remember hearing that

[Ziero]

Well, if it was a missile, then thats a huge fuckup and huge motivation for a coverup. Though, it doesnt seem as "conspiracy theory" as say 9/11 truthers or whatever

To win re-election. If people thought Clinton getting a BJ in office was bad, imagine how much they would've lost their goddamn minds over terrorists successfully using surface-to-air guided rockets to take down a passenger plane in US skies. Or even terrorists successfully attaching bombs to the exterior of an aircraft. The article isn't clear when they say "external explosions", but neither scenario is very good.

And yet no one really lost their minds over the 93 WTC bombing, nor did it keep Clinton from being re-elected. I'm not saying what happened, I'm just saying lolconspiracytheories.

[Blubbartron]

And yet no one really lost their minds over the 93 WTC bombing, nor did it keep Clinton from being re-elected. I'm not saying what happened, I'm just saying lolconspiracytheories.

'96 was an election year. The closer it was to election time, the more likely it is that people who have a job thanks to the current administration would want to sweep anything that could even appear to be a lack of military experience under the rug.

[Mizango]

Lets get Jesse Ventura on the case.

[notorious bum]

Everybody is so damn paranoid about being labeled a conspiracy theorist, thanks to that clown Alex Jones. Like it couldn't be possible some dumb fuck fired a missile and the govt didn't want that shit to get out, so they covered it up. Tin foil? Really?



http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/2..._lie_about_twa

[archibaldcrane]

Like it couldn't be possible some dumb fuck fired a missile and the govt didn't want that shit to get out, so they covered it up.

I think that's by far the most likely coverup if there was one.

(there probably wasn't one)

[ringthree]

To win re-election. If people thought Clinton getting a BJ in office was bad, imagine how much they would've lost their goddamn minds over terrorists successfully using surface-to-air guided rockets to take down a passenger plane in US skies. Or even terrorists successfully attaching bombs to the exterior of an aircraft. The article isn't clear when they say "external explosions", but neither scenario is very good.

Because Bush lost...

My god, really? Is that how badly we want to cling onto conspiracy theories?

[kuronosan]

I think the possibility of a military accident shouldn't be ruled out, simply based on the behavior of all investigators involved.

[ronin sparthos]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If a terrorist really managed to shoot down an aircraft you think that'd be like Christmas for whatever organization - Al Queda or otherwise - to brag about. It certainly would have been in 1996 when this happened yet not one peep from any sources came to light since then? Even back when Bin Laden was making his Jihadist videos where he'd rail off what wonderful atrocities had been perpetuated this never came up? An embassy bombing is newsworthy but shooting down an airliner isnt?

A government coverup is also equally dubious as the evidence is as scant as the foreign/domestic terrorist angle. Where is the evidence? What is the motive for shooting down a commercial airliner? An accident? Yet no one has leaked this information in the era of the Internet?