MovieChat Forums > TWA Flight 800 (2013) Discussion > If what this film purports is true, expl...

If what this film purports is true, explain the scenario to me...


The film culminates with the illustration of a situation where varying eyewitness accounts are accommodated by having three missile strikes from three separate locations. Explain to me the players involved with this (terrorists or US Military) and the reasoning for a cover up, given airliners have been shot down before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents

reply

Thanks for the link. That's interesting. I'd say there are two major differences:

1) This is the US military (if that theory holds)

2) This would be a peace-time training incident that killed civilians in a very public way.

As I read through the wikipedia list two distinguishing markers of those incidents seem to be 1) terrorists/rebels are involved and/or 2) war-time conditions.

As to the "three missile theory" it confused me as well. I did have a thought though since reading some discussions: what if the second (or third) missiles were sent to intercept an errantly sent first one?

But really, what do I know...I'm just a guy who watched a movie. (That is said in all sincerity...not sarcastically.)

reply

[deleted]

they can't identify things they can't prove...unlike the official explanation which is full of unproven conclusions

The Arizona Music Show
http://www.ArizonaMusicShow.com

reply

reason 1: our government is full of evil SOBs and they wanted to test a new weapons system on a real world target

This makes absolutely no sense, live fire testing is routinely done on flying targets (minus humans being within them). It's just absurd to believe that the government is composed of people so stereotypically evil, that they would actually enjoy using one of their new toys on the population. Also, I'm pretty sure that anyone in the government has very little to do with the day to day operations of the military.

reason 2: it was a terrorist attack and they did not want to give credit to that theory because the mass hysteria would have crippled the airline industry like after 9-11 and nobody would feel safe flying anymore if a couple guys with shoulder fired rockets could start picking off planes all over the country at will

All I can say is that the point of terrorism is to make a statement, making your statement would require taking responsibility for what you did. If it was a terrorist attack, where were the people claiming responsibility? And don't say they were arrested and silenced, because that would imply they knew where to find them within a very short amount of time.

reason 3: accidental shoot down during a routine military test (which I find to be totally implausible)

This has happened before, responsibility is always assumed. The US Navy accidentally shot down Iran Air 655, they assumed responsibility and paid damages.

saying it was a freak accident keeps pubic fears down and the airline industry booming...until of course 9-11 occurs which they couldn't claim to be anything else...I personally buy scenario #2

A "freak accident" does not cause a panic, nor would it drastically effect the airline industry. Planes crash every year for various reasons, there would be no reason to cover this one up and none of the other ones.


What is so crazy about the NTSB report? I'd guess that nobody on this thread has read or yet alone has the technical knowledge to understand it.

What makes a bunch of people in long island who saw the same general sequence of events, but with some distinct variations, more credible than a team of highly qualified and experienced engineers?

Accusing the entire investigation team of organized unethical behavior is just not sensible, engineers take ethics very seriously.

How is the scenario of three SIMULTANEOUS missile strikes, from three DIFFERENT locations more plausible than an electrical malfunction?

One final question I will ask is: Did that reconstructed fuselage look like it took THREE missiles?


What most likely occurred was a sloppy investigation caused by hostility between FBI and NTSB over who was in charge. The plane still crashed as was reported. Read the report about the faulty electrical wiring over the fuel tank.

reply

[deleted]

reason 1: our government is full of evil SOBs and they wanted to test a new weapons system on a real world target

reason 2: it was a terrorist attack and they did not want to give credit to that theory because the mass hysteria would have crippled the airline industry like after 9-11 and nobody would feel safe flying anymore if a couple guys with shoulder fired rockets could start picking off planes all over the country at will

reason 3: accidental shoot down during a routine military test (which I find to be totally implausible)

saying it was a freak accident keeps pubic fears down and the airline industry booming...until of course 9-11 occurs which they couldn't claim to be anything else...I personally buy scenario #2

The Arizona Music Show
http://www.ArizonaMusicShow.com

reply

There seems to be a lot of hyperbole or over-reaction rhetoric in response to the film's premise.

No where in the documentary did anyone claim that the U.S Government was hiding an intentional missile attack on a civilian airliner... no one.

It simply claims that there is a mountain of evidence to suggest the government's claim of a fuel tank explosion caused by a faulty wire is false. That's it.

And if you want to float random ideas out there: Would it be beyond all reason & logic to think that if a U.S. missile did hit the plane, that it was an accident? I'm sure that people have accidently been killed. That is just a random hypothetical... not a claim. And that's kind of what people want answers for.

reply

[deleted]

No where in the documentary did anyone claim that the U.S Government was hiding an intentional missile attack on a civilian airliner... no one.

It simply claims that there is a mountain of evidence to suggest the government's claim of a fuel tank explosion caused by a faulty wire is false. That's it.


I don't know if you and I watched the same film, but the first half was dedicated to exposing an FBI hindrance of the investigation, strongly suggesting at a possible coverup.

The only evidence I saw to suggest something other than an fuel tank explosion were the accounts of witnesses.

Even the explosion tests the filmmakers performed were consistent with an explosion from within the fuselage.

Read the NTSB report and then tell me there is a mountain of evidence suggesting otherwise.

https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf

reply

[deleted]

Using completely random non-expert eyewitnesses is what stupid people do to prove their stupidity.

reply

I agree the one major problem I have with what the documentary proposes is three missiles from two or three different sources. I can accept one missile from one ship that was due to a human or electronic failure. I'm not sure how interactive various weapon systems were in 1996. The only thing I could see as plausible is if there was an independent targeting system that ordered missiles fired at a target. Then again I don't see how a plane leaving US airspace would be considered a threat as one coming into it could be mistaken somehow.

But then, computers in 1996 weren't like they are today, so some sort of misinterpretation of a radar signature could have been enough to attack it.

But as I noted on another thread IF a significant umber of witnesses did observe phenomenon, both independently and consistently,a flare or rocket originate from the horizon, into the air and intersect with the plane, then where the rockets came from is a separate question.

It seems odd that 755 people were interviewed yet little to none of the testimony was significant to the report. That the CIA produced a video, that experts discredited as implausible, only adds to a suspicion that what witnesses reported is being discredited. Why would that be necessary in a transparent investigation?

reply

[deleted]