“Minutes ago, trucks filled with #coronavirus vaccines departed the @pfizer facility in Portage, Mich., headed for distribution centers and airports. Crowds who gathered outside the facility cheered the departing @FedEx and @UPS trucks.”
December 13, 2020
The same mono-crowds that cheered for Biden at that time.
Now one may wonder how in the world “crowds” could even know,
when and where such a thing would happen?
This tweet was brought to you by Pfizer.
And CNN!!!!!
here’s a story…. maybe not a funny one. my ex-wife’s family reunion was yesterday. shortly later I heard that her uncle Ralph died at age 78 …3 years ago. (news travels slowly when you have an ex. ). I asked by text what did Uncle Ralph die from. the reply was he died from covid. I was totally skeptical (let me go farther I said that’s just BS. what did he die from)? the 2nd answer was he died of cancer and pneumonia, (apparently with Covid) thanks.. FYI, check out citizens Free press.com. they have a story that shows compelling evidence that the 1996 jetliner, flying from New York City to Europe was shot down by an American missile…. by accident. oh my gosh… so surprising that the government would want to cover that up just like they covered up the 20/20 elections steal…..
If you mean TWA 800? There was no missile. That conspiracy theory has been completely debunked. Not only was it determined the 747’s center fuel tank exploded due to idiot Boeing running high and low voltage wiring together through the center fuel tank, but all airliners with center fuel tanks now have either been retrofitted or design changes to new ones that eliminate this source of ignition, and in addition they all now have nitrogen generators onboard to remove all oxygen from the fuel tanks so an explosive mixture cannot form.
Do you think both Boeing and Airbus would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit and alter their designs to support a cover up of a phantom missile accident? Here are two videos detailing what happened, the conclusions and in the second video made by an actual airliner mechanic showing the nitrogen generation system in place on all airliners flying today as a result of TWA 800:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZUHGUp5juY ( Boeing 747 Explodes After Takeoff | TWA Flight 800 )
https://www.tiktok.com/@stigaviation/video/7140003720292486443?lang=en (NGS (Nitrogen generation system) for fuel tank protection and the history behind it.)
I believe you are correct. The missile theory was totally debunked. The center fuel tank explosion was the likely cause. Witnesses on the ground who reported seeing ascending missiles were actually seeing aircraft debris falling.
One of the ways people gaslight on the internet, and try to make others sound insane, is by using the overworked phrase “That has been completely debunked.” I don’t recall anything about TWA 800 being “debunked”, except for the FBI’s ridiculous theory about the explosion and crash. 747s had been flying for over 25 years when that incident occurred, and not one had ever exploded. “Idiot Boeing” made the greatest aircraft on the planet, and I do not believe their engineers were stupid and reckless.
There is a documentary about TWA 800 that was made by a physicist, Tom Stalcup, called “TWA Flight 800”, which seems to provide some very reasonable evidence regarding the explosion and crash. Believing the same FBI that tried to destroy President Trump and then keep him from winning another election, is not a great idea, in my opinion. Dozens of witnesses scattered along the south shore of Long Island claim to have seen a streak of fire rising up and striking the plane. I can’t believe that dozens of adult people are all dumb and blind, and don’t know the difference between debris falling and a streak of fire rising. To say it’s been “debunked” means telling these people, “Who are you going to believe? The FBI or your lying eyes?”
It was not the FBI that concluded the actual probable cause. It was the NTSB. The FBI relinquished control after it was shown by the NTSB and the forensic evidence of the reassembled airframe that got the FBI to drop the criminal investigation. The amount of actual evidence for the center fuel tank explosion is overwhelming and the result is that all airliners now are mandated to have nitrogen generators onboard to render the gasses in the fuel tanks inert so this can never happen again.
As to witnesses seeing an upwards streak of flame, the front section ahead of the wing roots broke off and fell downwards, but the wings were still producing lift at the climb airspeed of 300 knots, and the engines were still running. The rest of the intact airframe continued to climb, even steeper as now the center of gravity had moved aft, and the ruptured fuel system poured fuel out the gaping hole, which was ignited by the running engines making a streak of flame as the remaining airframe continued to climb.
So no the witnesses on the shore etc did not see debris falling, they saw the still intact fuselage and wings minus the section ahead of the wings climbing and spewing fire after the explosion. And being tens of miles away the sound of the center fuel tank exploding reached them long after this upwards streak of fire. The brain is what “sees” based on what it deems plausible. it is not the signals from the eyes that are recorded. Which is why eyewitness testimony is so terribly unreliable in general. And the eyes don’t lie, the brain interprets what the eyes deliver and the image that is recorded in memory is what the brain has assembled, concluded or fabricated.
As to your uninformed comment about Boeing and their infallible design and execution, what about Japan Airlines 123 that crashed in 1985? And full 11 years prior to TWA800. A 747 that experienced explosive decompression and ended up crashing as a result of loss of all hydraulic pressure and that explosive decompression ripped off the vertical stabilizer and rudder. It was due to Boeing technicians improperly doing a repair on the rear pressure bulkhead some years earlier. And I quote
“Japan’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission (AAIC),[3]:?129? assisted by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board,[4] concluded that the structural failure was caused by a faulty repair by Boeing technicians following a tailstrike seven years earlier. When the faulty repair eventually failed, it resulted in a rapid decompression that ripped off a large portion of the tail and caused the loss of all hydraulic systems and flight controls. ”
None of the conspiracy theories presented here are supported with actual evidence. Here is an overview of the NTSB report, which was the most extensive and encompassing investigation ever undertaken by the Safety Board. And in it are at least two other examples of airliner fuel/vapor explosions (in Boeing planes):
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/documents/moriches_ny-TWA_800_Overview.pdf
This is only a simple overview, the actual report includes detailed analysis of all of the evidence, with a docket: “The docket, which has been publicly available since the late 1990s, contains over 17,000 pages of supporting documentation. ”
Finally the aircraft in TWA 800 was a 747-100 model, one of the original built, and it had over 91,000 flight hours on the airframe. Typically airliners are retired to the bone yard when they reach 70-80,000 hours. So yes the plausibility of wire bundles chaffing and causing a short to provide the ignition source for the flammable fuel vapor/air mixture in the center tank is high.
D. Boss posted a condescending and arrogant response to me underneath that I cannot respond to, because there is no reply button. But his poast deserves a response, simply for its belligerence.
I have nothing terribly lengthy to say to an obvious bully like you, D. Moss, but almost everything you said about my original statement is either a misrepresentation or a total lie. You seem to believe that by writing extended officious and nasty diatribes, replete with links to back up your opinion, you can disprove what is basically a rational suspicion about the cause of that crash which is shared by millions of people, plenty of whom are well-educated and intelligent. Your analysis seems to say, “Oh, it wasn’t the FBI. It was the NTSB.” Oh, okay. You’ve totally convinced me now. However, if you were to ever develop the guts to watch the documentary I mentioned, you’d see that there are investigators from the NTSB who worked on this case, and who signed onto a letter saying they do not agree with the “official” report. They were silenced and ostracized. They believe that a projectile hit the plane. Also, the increase in altitude you mention after the nose came off the plane is shown to be clearly impossible in this documentary, and a defiance of physical law.
I’m sorry if you’re not used to people disagreeing with you and your macho argument tactics. I never said Boeing was “infallible”, and I resent your hostile assertion that I am “uninformed”. I do not think I am. What I said was Boeing built the greatest aircraft ever built, and I said I do not believe Boeing’s engineers were stupid and reckless. You used the term “idiot Boeing” in your original post, so I defended a company whose planes were the best built airplanes on the planet. There is a difference between my statement and your lie about what I actually said, but you’re obviously not able to realize that. Your original overused and manipulative phrase about “debunked” is what I took issue with. Nothing has been “debunked”. You just choose to believe a government agency. So, just as you called me “uninformed”, I can easily say you’re childishly naive, incapable of critical thought, and easily persuaded.
I have no opinion about this stuff.
Never interested me, but …
to use your kind of argument.
Do you think that USA, UK,Germany and dozens of other countries would spent trillions of dollars on barely existing viral and climate threats and waste billions on useless masks,
or that Miller Light or Disney would lose hundreds of millions
just to get a message through to a >1% minority instead of working for their shareholders?
Or the Nonsensical Carbon Capture waste of oil companies(who on the other hand never care to mention the ice age scare to defend themselves from climate lunatics)
It seems that those planes worked well for millions of hours – but all of a sudden a massive change was necessary ?
We all know the official version of USS Maine that enabled the war
or the 9/11 abomination called NIST report that officially totally debunked all conspiracy theories(and in return mobilized 1000s of architects and engineers rejecting the NIST report – a single intact pillar would have massively slowed down the collapse that happened at a demolition style nearly free fall speed into its footprint instead of shifting to the side as result of the massive imbalance) .
Both are official and total BS just like the Matt Shephard case
who was officially killed by 2 rednecks for no reason
which lead to a massive transformation of laws in favor of gay people
despite the fact that Matt Shephard was killed by his gay lover because of drug money.
Everyone in said police station knew about that fact, yet the official story in court and media ran the official lie on purpose
Of course they could have taken a real existent killing of a gay or trans- but usually the perpetrators are blacks(up to 90% of trans killings),
but the perpetrator had to be white for maximum indoctrination and intimidation effect for the majority to further advance the globalist gay agenda that compliments the climate scam.
Or the boys on track incident who officially decided to sleep that night on railroad tracks(and get killed there) instead sleeping on the soft gras next to them or walking the 300 yards back home.
And the funniest thing about TWA 800.
That thing had barely started.
But after millions of flight hours without an incident just a few operational seconds were enough to built up so much power to make the system explode?
A good reason to question the official narrative
the same way the conspiracy sided narratives are being questioned.
And don’t you think that It’s strange that half of such significant, unique anomalies seem to happen in the USA?
Bad luck,maybe?
You are completely misinformed on TWA800. It spent at least 4 hours on the ground with mechanical delays and broken down ground vehicle blocking it’s exit from the gate. All the while the APU (small jet engine in the tail providing power generation) running and the air conditioning paks running as all passengers and crew were onboard. The Paks are immediately below the center wing tank, and being on the ground, these A/C paks generated substantial heating of the center wing tank. (but as soon as the aircraft starts moving, this overheating is avoided with ram air inlets for cooling)
Normally the plane is air conditioned from the ground via vent hoses. The paks only come on a few tens of minutes before the plane starts moving. So this 4 hour overheating of the center fuel tank and it’s being close to empty, with only about 80 gallons of fuel, the fuel vaporized and combined with the oxygen in the air of this humongous tank created an extremely explosive fuel vapor/air mixture.
And this explosive mixture was then ignited by wiring within the tank for the fuel level sensors, which had been compromised in wiring bundles elsewhere on the plane where high voltage wires were next to these low voltage sensor wires and the extreme age of the plane had caused wire insulation to chafe and short out. The plane was 10,000 to 20,000 flight hours past when they are normally retired due to too many failure issues being present with that much time.
And before all you armchair conspiracy advocates sound off, how about reading the actual accident report? None of your arguments collectively are based on the factual information contained in the report. Well the entire docket is 17,000 pages, but here is an overview:
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/documents/moriches_ny-TWA_800_Overview.pdf
Really? So pilots and Ship Captains saw the missile fired and strike the plane AND why did they shut it down the investigation in one week.
It is unlikely to confuse flying debris with a lonelymissile.
One has a upwards trajectory with zero backgroundnoise moving towards an object
the other is just one of many parts moving away from said object.
While the money those airplane manufacturers invested is a valid point(but only for the manufacturer of the exploded airplane ),
there is a simple, non conspiratorial explanation for that move.
Your country has some hilarious laws where companies can be sued into oblivion
and they thought :
Better pay a couple of hundred millions now
than billions after the next airplane crash that a smart lawyer will somehow link to this.
you are full of **it. the investigation took many years and delivered 17,000 pages of documentation. No one saw a missile fired, they saw the fueselage spewing fire as it continued to climb after the nose broke off from the center wing tank explosion.
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/documents/moriches_ny-TWA_800_Overview.pdf
Thx for the substantial info which was way better than your initial comment that was barely more than a well veiled ad hominem.
(and also explains well why such an incident may have occured after so many hours without problems).
But you are wrong with the assertion that I’m missinformed.
I’m barely informed at all(just the usual superficial stuff about eyewitness of missiles and/or planes before impact and official narrative changes from ” military exercise to no exercise at all + an expert who massively went against the narrative and died a short time later- that’s what I’m always looking at and for and for as crazy armchair conspiracy theorist ) as I already stated in my original comment and I’m not diving into it as I do not consider it to be relevant or get me anywhere – as with all plane crashes.
And you are the aviation expert here iirc
and I’m not going with a toothpick to a swordfight.
But please don’t come up with arguments like 17000 pages.
You will easily get 10 times the number in terms of global warming from a 1000 superexperts.
But for some reason you wont believe in AGW – probably for the same reason people doubt TWA.
When you have an original state A
that does not cause a problem for millions of hours(flight)
or years( CO2)
than a sudden change of this state to B is unlikely.
Thats why some people have problems to believe the official narrative.
Some of us know that the cargo is not “vaccines”. And many now know they did nothing to stop covid.
Being both an engineer And a Long Island south shore resident who heard the explosion and saw the flash, I was especially interested in what the hell had happened.
Boeing did Not run both High And Low voltage wiring through the fuel tank – only Low voltage wiring. HOWEVER, being an older plane much of the many miles of wiring had its insulation become brittle and cracked, and since elsewhere in the aircraft High AND Low voltage wires were run together, this was allowing high voltage to occasionally jump to the low voltage wiring. This was confirmed by the black boxes recovered because it was reported that some strange readings were being indicated by the fuel gage.
This was the ignition source.
Boeing engineers also believed that the fuel temperature inside the tank could never exceed its vapor pressure temperature to create a flammable fuel/air mixture. HOWEVER, in this unique situation, the day was very hot, and the flight was delayed excessively (around two hours) on the tarmac, with the cabin air conditioning running on full. The air conditioner units were located beneath the center fuel tank, and after all that time, the temperature of the liquid fuel in the tank increased well beyond the point of vaporization and created an explosive mixture with the air inside. All that was needed for the explosion was the ignition source – which came when some higher voltage wiring shorted to the lower voltage wiring running through the tank.
When the center tank exploded, the nose of the aircraft came apart and fell to the ocean, but the rest of the plane remained intact, and with the shift of the center of gravity and the engines still running flat out, what was left of the plane turned skyward and ascended (appearing like an upward missile) for a brief time until the fire and structural damage finally tore the rest of it apart, and it all came falling down.
That’s what happened; that’s why the missile theory is debunked.
I’m certainly no airplane expert …I can’t say for sure what happened with that plane, but I must take issue with you claiming this was a “unique” weather situation. how many hundreds of planes like that were made and flown for years and this is the only plane that blew itself up. hhhmmmm.
Factors which can not be ignored, when compared to other planes, is the age of the plane and wiring and whether it had been replaced or not. Different aircraft may not have the same wiring issues. I know my 2000 Jeep Cherokee is full of strange and inconvenient problems because the wiring is old and many cracked and broken wires have had to be patched.
Unfortunately replacement harnesses for it are no longer available.
And the official conclusions cited the climate condition (temp on the tarmac well into the 90s) with the delay, pointing out that while extended delays at JFK weren’t uncommon, they more often happen at the terminal while the aircraft is still plugged into auxiliary power from the terminal. The huge delay waiting to taxi and under its own power was unusual and allowed the plane to cook. All the other waiting planes likely cooked as well – but an ignition source is still required, and this particular aircraft had one.
The Smithsonian Channel series “Air Disasters” covers the whole investigation in great detail.
If people want to continue to believe in conspiracies, so be it. But everything claimed in the official version withstands engineering scrutiny.
in the Middle East it hits 120 often…. but planes don’t explode on their own there. maybe the ignition source was the missile that people saw rising in the sky. maybe. just sayin. can’t say for sure
JP8 fuel has to rise to its flash point temperature of 116F at sea level before it can begin to become combustible. The fuel is stored well below that temperature. It takes a lot of time to raise a significant amount of liquid anywhere near that temperature. The center tank on TWA 800 was nearly empty as the additional fuel was unnecessary and the wing tanks are filled to capacity first. On a hot day with a significant heat source directly beneath the tank the small quantity, said to be only 50 gallons well exceeded 116F. In fact, a subsequent test was performed with a 747 using the same fuel loading and tank distribution, sitting idling on a tarmac, ambient temperature in the 90s and the ac on full for the same period of time as 800. The center tank reached 136F ! The wing tanks never got out of the 80s. Had the center tank been full, it would likely have never even reached 100F. The engineers and scientists were astounded ! Even so, it still would not have led to an explosion without an ignition source. But one was proven with the bad wiring discovered and the confirmation of problems with the fuel indicator before takeoff.
Don’t compare other aircrafts and other situations and other hot days. Every single specific data point has to be considered to properly compare one situation to another.
Aircraft accidents unfold with a rapidity that renders eye witness accounts virtually useless. Events unfold more rapidly than the senses can assimilate them. The only reliable information is from the flight recorder, the cockpit voice recordings and the debris. If a missile were involved, there would be widespread peppering of the debris with the warhead fragments, these are very characteristic in size and shape and material employed. It would be the easiest option to dismiss.
why are we spending our time on an airplane accident that happened almost 30 years ago when we’re facing a climate crisis right now! we’ve only got five years left and then we’re all going to die! lol. wait a second…. aside from the Texas flood, mother nature seems to be gone on vacation. we can’t even hit 90 this month in central Minnesota and no 90s in the forecast. it rains about every third day here and the crops have never looked better at this time of year. looks like the climate crisis is canceled so back to the airplane! lol
Why not ? We still spend time on JFK…… Although recent declassifications do warrant it.
Come on Bob.
You started the discussion- don’t complain now.
And It’s the best way to exchange information and sort thoings out.
It’s not about age, but truth.
And truth does not age.
It took Musk and dozens of billions of dollars for the broader public to be able to talk about stuff like this or Epstein.
Don’t complain now.
Agreed. An explosion pushes/bends metal in one direction – away from it. A missile would have left lots of the aircraft blown inward, towards the passenger and luggage compartments. Or blown a wing apart. The investigators did not find that. Instead they found the center fuel tank, among other parts, blown outward. So they can tell that there was an explosion originating inside the center fuel tank. So either a very savvy terrorist somehow managed to place a bomb inside a sealed fuel tank – or there was an explosive mixture existing within the tank and something ignited it.
As for the conspiracy theories, especially the one involving the missile……. There were a LOT of investigators, mostly NTSB, and some FBI; these people aren’t part of the so-called “deep-state” (CIA, DIA and such) we all hear about. It would take “a lot” to get that many ordinary civilians to go along with that kind of cover up, and still be keeping their mouths shut after 30 years. I would wager any amount of $ that the CIA killed or had killed JFK (especially in light of the recent releases the CIA wanted still kept secret) – but I wouldn’t bet a nickel on anything other than what’s been concluded regarding this tragedy.
While I’m still uninformed and barely interested (and would have never been if someone did not respond asshole style – not talking about you).
I mean your country destroyed a dozen others and vanished 3 million Vietnamese people and increased child mortality by 1.2 mio after destroying a Sudanese pharma company .
What’s a plane desaster compared to that?
There are 2 things here bothering me.
If a plane drops into the ocean finding debris becomes a thing no matter it was hit or not.
( and the metal of USS Maine was bent inside out as can be easily seen on the photo that hasn’t been destroyed and yet all experts were sure it was hit from outside)
And as a hypocrit I have to admit, I use your argument in favor of my pro-moon landing stance,
as I always point out to the fact that it is impossible to keep those infos hidden.
But the actual number of participants is irrelevant.It depends on how many had overall access to key informations.
That’s why the Manhattan Project was kept a secret for more than a decade though 130000 people were overall involved in it.
(But only a few dozen well isolated guys knew what it was really all about,)
And even if a case is not isolated, easily accessible
and dozens of Americans have been intentionally killed
as result of a conspiracy to start/extend a war with another country(egypt) as happened with the USS Liberty,
it can be easily concealed from the public,
as for 50 years 90% of people in the US (and 99% outside of the USA ) had 0 knowledge about this incident.
And while the USA can easily reach any spot in the mediterranean sea wuthin 30 minutes ,
it left the USS Liberty on its own for about 24 hours.
(hoping it would sink.
Then experts would have came around and told us,after the false flag failed, in 170000 pages how the ship exploded on its own as result of a engine failure and decaying insulation that ignited the stored missiles.And everyone and their dog would believe the official story – wouldn’t they?
But contrary to the USS Liberty attack and many other real conspiracies I can not make up a Cui Bono case to safe my life with TWA 800.
And noone would initiate a high level conspiracy for a low level outcome.
At best a cover up for a testing accident.
Even MH 370 has way more to offer with the semiconductor theory )
And here is 3rd thing out of the 2 things that I find a bit strange.
Maybe this is an American thing – but.
Planes are high maintenance vehicles (and therefore the most safe passenger vehicles on earth) .
How likely is it that they have broken insulations and wires?
The usually not the most expensive stuff you try to safe money with by not replacing it.
I’m pretty sure they do not use some off the mill crap they use for cars and that they are way way better protected from environmental impacts and everything else.
And while the several hours stand down explains my initial question about the possible built that lead to the catastrophe.
Aren’t vehicles supposed to be in stand by during such
additional maintenance periods – especially when they are that long?
Few anti air missiles use blast to inflict damage, the warheads are usually fragmenting or continuous rods which inflict characteristic damage which is easily recognized.
The missile conjecture implies a short range man portable weapon. There is always the possibility of a military foul up such as the accidental shooting down of a Russian airliner in the late ’90s by a Ukrainian SA-5 (Goblet) (sorry, I only know the NATO designations), at a range of well over 100km. Also the shooting down of an Iranian airlines A300 in 1988 by the USS Vincennes, comes to mind. (The Iranians are still waiting for an apology) . Even if obvious warhead damage were found, who is going to admit the aircraft was brought down by a missile which had gone rogue?
this is my reply to Mac, from way up the thread where he disagrees with D. Boss… I hear you Mac and I tend to agree with you although I don’t know for sure what happened. I think 38 people know the difference between a flame going up or a flame going down. the flame from a small rocket is a lot different from the flame caused by huge fuel tanks blowing up. remember Las Vegas last summer? it was 117 for a week in a row and no airplanes blew up. in fact none have blown up by this cause in history, ( that I know of). now I’m going to do a little speculation based on human nature. if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in quick order that that plane was brought down by a surface to air missile, nobody would get on an airplane in the United States ever again, because we would all assume that it was done by a terrorist and they probably have dozens of these missiles. I think very few of us would assume it was done by the US Navy cuz we wouldn’t think they could be that incompetent. much better to announce a conclusion that it was a freak accident that will never happen again. I don’t know what happened, Its just my two cents
I recall the case of an Air France caravel in the early 1970s. It did a number of ground rolls before taking off successfully and was never seen again. The belief was that the brakes had heated up to a dangerous degree, and the wheel bays were adjacent to the main fuel tanks.
Also, I doubt very much if anybody could tell the difference between a fuel tank exploding in response to a missile warhead or one due to an internal fault.
yes. agreed. the difference is what happened before the big explosion. my mistake, not 38 people it’s a hundred. from wiki….” the months following the tragic crash of TWA Flight 800 the FBI conducted an extensive investigation and interviewed over 700 eyewitnesses. Most of these witnesses only saw the massive fireball as it descended from nearly 3 miles high. However, nearly 100 of these eyewitnesses saw a streak rise from the surface of the ocean or the visible ,horizon and ascend upward, ending in a bright white flash. Some saw multiple white flashes. Seconds later a secondary explosion erupted in a massive orange fireball that fell into the ocean. “. we have doubts about Epstein’s death with no witnesses. TWA 800 has 100 witnesses contradicting the official conclusion.
Sounds like a foul up with a rogue missile. Usually, a missile self-destructs if guidance command is lost for more than a few seconds. However, if a large, high radar cross section, target happens to come within the field of view of the seeker within that interval, it will lock on to it. The range of a Standard missile is classified, but it is much further than the distance to the horizon.
Of course you can. The metal is bent away from the disturbance. An internal explosion bends all the metal outward, away from the center. If a missile had penetrated the tank or exploded near it the metal would be pushed inward toward the center.
GW, Can’t both scenarios be correct? the metal is pushed in where the rocket hits the airplane and the rest of the metal is blowen outward when the gas tanks explode – one of which is alleged to be mostly empty so it’s going to be mostly fumes… very volatile fumes.
When the debris is examined would be obvious whether the aircraft were hit by a missile, but that would not be obvious to an observer on the ground watching events unfold. The warhead would be detonated by means of a proximity fuze several metres away from the target, and the aircraft structure would be peppered with holes from the warhead fragments, these are typically metal cubes which perforate the target. The tank may well explode outward due to hydraulic shock, but the fragment damage would remain obvious.
Arn…. I’m not complaining. I’m joking. the lol stands for laughing out loud. read it again in that context. there is no climate crisis.
Arn, your point regarding who has access to the information is valid, as is your reference to the Manhattan Project. However, you are overlooking something, which is the classified, top secret, nature of that project. The 130k+ personnel were also told the work was classified, they were told Not to ask questions about Anything, and would face criminal penalties for talking about it, including with family.
There was no such classification with this investigation, nor would it have been tolerated. Same thing with the Challenger disaster in 86. There was no limiting of who had access to the wreckage or other information that I’ve ever heard of.
And as far as the wiring itself goes, I can not speak to that. I can speculate that wiring was intended (believed) to last the working life of the aircraft. The documentaries said investigators and engineers were shocked to learn the condition of the wiring, and I “think” it led to a call to inspect all other 747s, perhaps others too (IDK).
today’s state of fear story….. glaciers melting omg. haven’t they been melting since 1860? Montana’s glacier Park glaciers are only 4000 years old. must have been warmer 5,000 years ago. here’s a story on Switzerland glaciers melting and the culprit is “dirty” energy. https://www.thecooldown.com/outdoors/alps-switzerland-glacier-loss-bottom-melt/
Happy midsummer from chilly St. Cloud Minnesota! time is 12:30 in the afternoon and the current temperature is a chilly 59. the forecast high for this afternoon is 60. the record low high for today is 66… but we won’t be setting a new daily record low high because it was 68° at midnight…a half hour later it was down to 66 and it dropped from there.
I think we need to do a welfare check on ARN. where are you buddy? lol. Steve Miller band cancels all concerts due to climate change. that must be from The Babylon bee…but it turns out it’s not. lol. speculation is it has to do with low ticket sales. probably. Miller needs to team up with another old has been band like REO teamed up with Chicago. let me suggest to Steve to team up with the great band called Styx. it does draw more people when you team up with another classic band. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/07/beyond-parody-steve-miller-band-cancels-all-remaining/. fyi .. if you want to hear some good old time rock and roll go to YouTube and check out the concert at Red rocks Colorado that REO and Chicago put on about 10 years ago. great stuff!
Thanks for the interview with Tom Nelson .
Bob, there would not be an undoing (reversal) of the damage done by a missile explosion after igniting a secondary fuel tank explosion. There would be a cacophony of damage indicating such. Not to mention there would be plenty of explosive residue all over everything. Military explosives are many many times more energetic than a hydrocarbon fuel explosion.
There is another ting people believing in the eyewitness accounts. . . . . The plane was flying around 10 miles off the coast, and at least 3 miles high. That’s over 11 miles away, and a plane may look very big when you’re looking out a window at the gate, but not so much 11 miles away. When you see a large plane flying low for landing or from takeoff, as I do all the time being very near JFK, LGA & ISP, and it looks fairly large overhead, well it may only be a mile away (5000′ alt). At 11 miles away I doubt anyone would notice a plane were it not for the fireball. And the fireball is all anyone would see.
My wife and I were out for an evening walk and were at the shore of the Great South Bay in West Islip when we noticed (perceived anyway) a flash or brightening of the sky followed by a kind of orange glow. Many seconds later we heard a distant rumble, like far off thunder or fireworks. This was either side of sunset or maybe shortly past, and we thought perhaps there was an event farther east of us hosting fireworks, although we thought it kind of early for fireworks.
Remember that first of all, the entire event would have been over in a minute or two. The actual explosion might not be witnessed unless you were already looking in that direction, because it would be a several seconds before the sound of the explosion would reach the shore and cause you to look in that direction. And then you’re looking at something quite small a good 10+ miles away, out at the horizon, at sunset.
And its over before you realize what it is you’re looking at and leaves you questioning what you just saw.
I remember watching the SS Challenger launch live in 1986 on a big screen TV in the college cafeteria with a lot of other people. When it exploded and the solid boosters cut loose flying off in different directions, we were all wondering what we just saw – was it normal ? Was this just a normal booster ejection ? Did something go wrong ? It was probably a good minute before everyone concluded something bad happened.
I don’t doubt people saw a fiery ascension which could have been taken to be a missile when viewed form at least 10 miles away; because we know the airplane turned vertical after the nose came off and climbed at least a 1000′ or 2000′ feet, while on fire, before breaking up, stalling, and then falling.
Without Hi Resolution video of the entire event, I do not consider Anyone’s eyewitness account as valid, concrete evidence of what truly, physically transpired. Anecdotal evidence for conversation, sure. But nothing more.
Oh, and another thing about the wires in the aircraft : when was this particular plane built ? In the 1970s ? I am not aware of any special classification of wiring especially for use in airplanes. I purchased many hundreds of thousands of dollars of wiring of various types for my careers worth of projects, and I never saw or heard of anything extra-specially designated as suitable for use in aircraft. I’m not saying there isn’t, but I think I’d have been aware of its existence; there could be now, but I really doubt it back then. Another thing is that the plastics and rubbers used for insulation were still relatively crappy in the 1970’s, material science has come a looong way in 50 years.
All I’m trying to communicate is that the official account is more than just plausible, and a lot more so, IMO, than some guy on a fishing boat with a shoulder fired RPG, Or a USN submarine floating in shallow coastal waters having one of its Tomahawk missiles get loose !
And there’s another point – We’re NOT talking about silo-launched ICBMs here ! A Tomahawk type missile is pretty darn small – small enough to fit under a fighter, which itself is pretty darn small compared to a 747 !
Could Anyone have even seen a Tomahawk type missile – from 10 miles away ??? I Think NOT !!!
LOGIC, MUST, Prevail !
Tomahawk is a air to surface or surface to surface missile. An anti air missile would be much smaller still and would be travelling at about Mach 3 rather than Mach 0.8, so it is unlikely that surface observers would see it. The eyewitness accounts are usually useless because events unfold too rapidly. The damage inflicted by a fragmenting or continuous rod warhead is highly characteristic and glaringly obvious to the most superficial inspection.
GW,. thanks for the reply. everything you wrote may be true. I’m just saying I’m not convinced. 100 witnesses saw a rocket going up. fyi… Sam’s are not large, they’re only 3 inches by 5 ft. what is your opinion why this has… maybe …happened only once out of millions and millions of airplanes taking off and landing? please don’t cite some government Burrow-rat as evidence ….those people are so self-serving…. recall the 50 “experts” ( liars) who said Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation
Well first of all, aircraft designed in the wake of the conclusions will have been changed to eliminate this possibility from ever happening again. Planes already in existence will have been thoroughly inspected and deficiencies, like fraying wires replaced. Where appropriate, redesign of systems have been implemented to again, eliminate the possibility; I’ve heard about inerting systems to eliminate oxygen from the tanks.
Think about something else for a moment : there have been, I don’t know – billions perhaps, of automobiles with gasoline tanks, mixed with air, and have electric fuel pumps and level indicators in them. Gasoline is FAR more dangerous than jet fuel which is mostly kerosene, How many times have you heard in the news about another car exploding because a faulty fuel pump triggered an explosion in the gas tank ? I’ve never heard of it; however I have heard about a lot of lithium battery fires/explosions in Teslas !
Anyway, you can rule out any incidents from ever happening again from that cause for at least the last 20 years if not longer.
Second, most aircraft are not even equipped with a so-called “center fuel tank” within the fuselage ! That is 1. because wing storage is the location of choice, and 2. there was never a need for them, until…… the 747 came along.
The 747 was the first of its kind, designed explicitly for the purpose of extended, non-stop long haul flights, like NY to Tokyo or Hong Kong or LA to Paris, etc., which for the first time in commercial aviation created the need for that additional fuel capacity, requiring a large capacity fuel tank in the fuselage. Unfortunately, the designers placed the cabin AC units beneath that tank. And unfortunately, they decided to run wires inside the tank without being in a sealed, isolated conduit through the tank. Sure, all aircraft have trim tanks and means of transferring fuel back/forth, but it is only very large planes whose primary purpose and use is the very long haul, non-stop flights which have a center fuel tank within the fuselage of any significant capacity.
That is, even today, a small number of models out of the entire global fleet.
The 747 went into service in 71 or 72; it would be 20-25 years before the wiring would decay to the point of creating electrical problems, so 1996 was right on schedule.
How many years (or decades) since 1972 was it before other manufacturers created similar long haul aircraft to challenge the 747s market ? Did they also place the AC units beneath the center tank ? Did they also run exposed electrical wires inside of it ? Perhaps 747s are the only affected design, and perhaps this was just the first of potentially more incidents, but this first one alerted everyone to the risks the wiring presented which were then corrected.
I’m going to leave it here; I’m not going to begin explaining the thermodynamics of heat capacity, thermal mass and energy transfer, and why engineers never envisioned an earthly scenario where fuel could reach, let alone exceed 116F, even when parked for hours at 120F ambient.
Suffice it to say the incident was like being struck by lightening while in possession of a multimillion dollar lottery ticket.
obviously you know a lot about this subject. it does take a lot of energy to raise the temperature of a tank of liquid. I think I heard that some speculated there might have been only 50 gallons of fuel in that center tank. that’s not much compared to the capacity of the tank but still a lot of liquid that needs to be heated up and I’m skeptical that some AC units could do that, (don’t AC units blow hot air outside?). something you didn’t address is the 100 witnesses that saw a rocket (a streak of light going up), traveling from the sea to that airplane. so it’s just a coincidence that it blew up where it did? not too high, also in the dark, away from land where a ship could hide easily. on the other hand, it’s been almost 30 years and you’d think there’d be whistleblowers. but then again who wants to admit that they played a part in something that incompetent.
I did address it; the flaming aircraft ascended for some thousand feet prior to breaking up, stalling and falling back to the surface. At its altitude of around 15,000′ +/- a couple thousand, and at – at least 8 miles away, it’s very low on horizon, so optically it could easily appear as if something was rising or had risen from the horizon, er’ surface. And as I stated earlier, an actual missile would have been invisible due to its small size, so if it had been an actual missile attack, witnesses would have likely seen an explosion followed by falling, flaming debris, and never have seen a missile ascending from the surface at all.
that’s not how many witnesses described it. many of these eyewitness accounts are compelling and they’re not just random schmoes fishing. some are law enforcement some are pilots, etc. https://patch.com/new-york/newcity/the-downing-of-twa-800–part-3–the-eyewitnesses_1846580d. as for a small rocket flare being too small to be seen, you can go to google images and see that small rockets give off big flames. the human eye is very good at seeing a light in the dark. my example of that is my car battery charger. when it’s charging it has a tiny yellow light on which is about 1/8 of an inch wide and you can barely see it in the daytime. I recall one time I plugged it in and it started charging and then I went for a walk and it was dark out. when I was a block away that yellow light was so bright it looked like it was 6 inches wide. please check out the witness accounts on the link
It wasn’t dark; it was around sunset. Still a lot of light left and onlookers would have been facing south, not east toward the darkest part of the sky. I’m not willing to accept what people described seeing as fact. Our eyes deceive us all the time, and it was very far away. I’m satisfied with the official version, in this case.
true, the sun had set 10 minutes prior. i have my doubts that you read the witness reports, which I provided in the link. so a pilot at 8500 ft can’t tell if a nearby explosion is at 7500 ft or was at 13,000? and the second pilot said the same… the big explosion was at 7500 ft after the plane was already shot down from 13,000. it’s obvious …. a rocket destroyed that plane and then the government covered it up like they cover everything else up…. to hide their incompetence….that’s my opinion.
I don’t believe the government could have covered this one up. Far too many civilians involved in the post mortem investigation to be forced into going along with it. And nothing was classified to use the national security excuse to force everyone’s silence. Furthermore, if it happened as you choose to believe, the government would not have recovered almost the entire plane from the seafloor. Logically, they would have recovered far less, especially stuff revealing missile damage, and simply disappeared the rest of it so a proper investigation would end up being inconclusive. That’s my opinion.
You just proved to me that you didn’t read the witness reports that I provided in that link. it includes testimony that there was all kinds of rocket residue and missile damage found on the parts of that plane that were recovered. Do your homework (read the link) and then get back to me. tyia. :-). (the witness reports do not implicate the United States Navy)