Yeah, I remeber this story. Very eye opening but also scary that it could get covered up.

The Navy fucked up, plain and simple.

I think this is probably true, but it's hard to imagine a ship full of sailors would know this and not say anything to anyone. AFAIK there has never been a sailor come forward to say anything.

Because they'd be tossed in a gulag. It's not that hard to fathom keeping your mouth shut for the safety of you and your family.

I doubt the entire ship knew and, of those that did, I doubt that they would tell anyone about that. Would you?

I wouldn't. I'm on your side here.

I'm just saying it is one thing to admit complicity in something like faking a moon landing and quite another to admit to accidentally shooting down a civilian jet liner. Those in the know are likely grateful that they weren't held accountable.

Navy missile

Yes there were eyewitness accounts of lights/missile in the sky.

However I dont see much of a rationale for a shoot down.

Central tank explosion still looks more likely to me.

Doesn’t have to be a rationale, could have been an accident like with Iran air 655 or Itavia 870.

Good point. Harder to rationalise than Iran Air but yeah, possible.

You are right about witness testimony being generally inaccurate however when many people corroborate the same story it gets taken a lot more seriously. Remember this is why the CIA has to release the whole zoom climb video back then to explain to eyewitnesses what they saw. Except it never did and the radar tracks showed a primary blip falling straight out of the sky....that alone is one of the biggest pieces of evidence against the CWFT explosion. I was very much on the fence until I saw this documentary a few weeks ago...very interesting stuff.

Do you mean eyewitness accounts saw missle trails / plumes? Because i dont remember people seeing missles.

I remember that eyewitness on the lake. A guy saw a missle trail behind his house.

IIRC, there was a outdoor wedding of like 75+ that all reported seeing what looked like a missile contrail.

Many witnesses saw missiles. I researched this when it happened, and periodically since then.

Okay. I guess..

Central tank explosion, my ass.

That's where it would happen, yes.

Never happened before, hasn't happened since. Hasn't happened to any of the MILLIONS of fuel carrying vehicles on this planet, ever.

It was a joke.

Tank explosion, ass, etc.

Philippines Flight 143 in 1990.

Do you not do any research before typing in capital letters?

The belief is the Navy accidentally shot down TWA 800. The White House, FBI, and CIA initiated the coverup because it was a presidential election year.

Jack Cashill has some great interviews and presentations on YouTube for those interested.

Yes, the US NAVY has 3 submarines in the vicinity of TWA 800. The USS Trepang, USS Wyoming and the USS Albuquerque

Over 600

I haven't seen this documentary. I would avoid using prime for anything conspiracy related. Prime is guilty of pushing a lot of thoroughly debunked bs ex. Philip Schneider and Bob Lazar. It is an intentionally misinformation campaign designed to discredit every conspiracy.

Center fuel tank, my ass.

What procedures did they put in place to make sure this type of "accident" never happened again? That's right, nothing was every fully implimented, the FAA only provided a suggested fix over a decade later.

But, the Concord crashes once, after decades of flawless service, and the whole fleet gets permanently grounded.

I thought all 747s were modified (the fuel tanks) so it could never happen again ?

To my knowledge, the FAA only made the recommendations, but I haven't seen any data that this was fully implimented in the field.

Of course, I'm just some guy on the internet, and I might be wrong

Your response is just plain wrong. I spent a lot of time in the late 90’s early 2000’s inside 747 Center wing tanks doing bonding mods to prevent this sort of thing happening again. Nowadays any large aircraft has a nitrogen inerting system for the tanks as a preventative measure.

The concord was a victim of an economy that no longer valued its place in the sky.

I'll have to take your word for the first part of your response, though it is still interesting that the FAA had a fix when, in reality, nobody really knows what actually caused the ignition

"The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty" Source - the above Wikipdea Article

Also, it's interesting that you were doing modificatons to 747's in the "late 90s early 2000's", when the fix was only proposed in 2008, well over a decade after the actual incident

Accidents due to design deficiencies included TWA Flight 800, where a 747-100 exploded in mid-air on July 17, 1996, probably due to sparking electricity wires inside the fuel tank;[222] this finding led the FAA to propose a rule requiring installation of an inerting system in the center fuel tank of most large aircraft that was adopted in July 2008 Source - Wikipdea: Boeing 747

But, hey, I'm just a guy on the internet and I might be wrong.

The concord was a victim of an economy that no longer valued its place in the sky.

I argue that it was mostly the crash that contributed to it's demise, because what was widely reported afterwards was that it happened as a direct result of the inherently flawed design of the Concorde, not of any specific mechanical failure.

I'll admit that, after 9/11, all airlines were in a horrible slump for several years and passenger numbers across the board were way down for everyone. So, yes, the economy played a part, but I do not believe it was the sole contributor.

The Concord flew for another 3 years after that crash ...

But, the Concord crashes once, after decades of flawless service, and the whole fleet gets permanently grounded.

Don't you do any fact checking at all before you type?

Concorde flew after the crash.

Only for a few years

You said permanently grounded.

Now it's a few years.

Make your mind up.

Also look at the oil price level during those years.

In fact, do some more research altogether.

I didn't say when they were grounded.

You understand that "permanently grounded" is an event, and "a few years" is a timeline, right? Those are not mutually exclusive. They're not even the same thing.

I believe it's you who needs to brush up on your reading comprehension.

Your comment clearly connects the crash to the grounding.

When in fact the aircraft were refitted and modified and returned to service. Your comment was misleading at least.

My comment connects the crash of the Concorde to the grounding of the Concorde.

When the crash of TWA 800 only lead to, well, not much actually.

I was trying to compare and contrast those to events, the crash of TWA 800 and the crash of the Concorde. Sure, I'll admit I could have worded that better.

That's fair. Didn't mean to jump down your throat so much, could have been easier on you!

No worries, thank you for helping de-escalate!

I recall there being a lot of worry surrounding WHO was on the plane that died and possible political motives as well, but i haven't looked at any of this in a loooong time. Also the reconstruction of the wreckage indicating the use of a missile. Does this documentary go into that? Can't watch now but might later.

Not sure about VIPs aboard, but my set design colleague from Ohio State University's Theatre Dept. was on that flight to Paris with her younger sister to study design. A terrible event I've never forgotten and was so pissed no one in the Navy was found responsible although I did hear there were internal personnel transfers to move those guilty to faraway posts..

That fucker got shot down by a missile fired by the US military, end of story.

Why do you say "end of story"?

1996 was an election year and it would have looked very bad if terrorists had blown up a US commercial airliner.

Get the fuck out of here. My Dad investigated multiple airplane crashes with the NTSB. There's no way anyone would be able to tamper with the evidence. You should probably stop talking out of your ass about things you have no idea about. You sound really fucking dumb.

Doesn’t have to be a rationale, could have been an accident like with Iran air 655 or Itavia 870.

Do you mean eyewitness accounts saw missle trails / plumes? Because i dont remember people seeing missles.

I remember that eyewitness on the lake. A guy saw a missle trail behind his house.

I thought all 747s were modified (the fuel tanks) so it could never happen again ?

Your response is just plain wrong. I spent a lot of time in the late 90’s early 2000’s inside 747 Center wing tanks doing bonding mods to prevent this sort of thing happening again. Nowadays any large aircraft has a nitrogen inerting system for the tanks as a preventative measure.

The concord was a victim of an economy that no longer valued its place in the sky.

Central tank explosion, my ass.

The Concord flew for another 3 years after that crash ...

It was a joke.

Tank explosion, ass, etc.

But, the Concord crashes once, after decades of flawless service, and the whole fleet gets permanently grounded.

Don't you do any fact checking at all before you type?

Concorde flew after the crash.

Philippines Flight 143 in 1990.

Do you not do any research before typing in capital letters?

The belief is the Navy accidentally shot down TWA 800. The White House, FBI, and CIA initiated the coverup because it was a presidential election year.

Jack Cashill has some great interviews and presentations on YouTube for those interested.

I doubt the entire ship knew and, of those that did, I doubt that they would tell anyone about that. Would you?

Over 600