Ex Obama Pilot Believes TWA Flight 800 Probably Shot Down or Blown Up

W

WhatInThe

SF VIP
A pilot who flew Obama around during the 2008 presidential campaign believes TWA Flight 800 was probably shot down or blown up on purpose.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/obama-pilot-twa-flight-800-shot-article-1.2186329

He does not believe the fuel tank caught fire and/or exploded.

One thing he cites besides experience & knowledge is that the FBI would frequently clear the hanger of investigators to 'sterilize' the area. He also noted the reports of trails heading towards the plane.

I don't think there are these massive all encompassing conspiracies but I do think smaller conspiracies and/or screw ups are frequently covered up. What could have been covered up-an accidental shoot down by the military conducting exercises in the area? Or in an Olympic and presidential election year did the government want to ensure the public and world the US was safe from even lone wolf terrorist ie terrorists with an anti aircraft missile and small boat.
 

This event was investigated many times over. Initially, it was thought to be a tracer missile from one of the ships or from on land while the military (Navy) was performing exercises. It was later discovered that NO ordinance from anywhere in that area was fired on that particular evening. There were traces of plastic explosive found within the recovered wreckage. However, it was also discovered that just a few weeks previously, that particular jet had been used to house some small amounts of a plastic explosive as part of the terrorist training for bomb sniffing dogs. The explosives, of course, were all removed, but the explanation was that some of the explosive may have leaked from the boxes, thus allowing for the discovery of the plastic explosive during the crash investigation.

Flight 800, which came in from Greece, sat on the tarmac in New York City at JFK Airport during a very hot July day for two and a half to three hours. I can't remember all of the details, but the final reason given for the explosion in mid-air was due to the center gas tank being allowed to remain empty allowing for the vapors from the remaining two tanks to accumulate in that open space. This was done to help lighten the aircraft to keep costs down. The pilot that day was a fellow with the last name of Snider. I can't remember his first name. This was a protocol that he developed to save airlines money.

The instruments and mechanical features, including the instruments (analog) on that aircraft were old and never updated. Unfortunately, neither was the wiring. There is a junction block located alongside the middle fuel tank. Because the old wiring may have been a bit frayed, the inspectors who tested their theory reported that there was an arc, or short circuit created from the loss of insulation on the old wiring allowing for the explosion of the vapors. The theory was tested and retested and proved to be very similar as to what had happened to Flight 800. Today, the same protocol on B-747's is used. However, the center tank is now filled with inert gases to prevent the center tank with filling of oxygen and to prevent explosions because there should be no vapors omitting from the inert gasses and the space that once was allowed to contain vapors no longer exists.

The different theories will continue to be told, just like the Kennedy assassination. It was a horrific day for the families of the victims. There was also a French high school class from Montoursville, PA, which was flying to Paris, the first stop for Flight 800 before going on to Rome. The ironic part of this whole situation was that this was to be the final flight for this particular TWA Boeing 747.
 

It could be just terminology but I'm unsure of "frayed". Plastic insulation frequently shrinks from drying. Cracking requires extreme drying. If the insulation shrunk out of or pulled away from that block that could've been an issue. I can't believe aviation electrical standards didn't require some kind of collar and/or bushing & seal on a connection, splice or termination near moisture or combustibles especially. Must say many techs and electricians are poor wire strippers frequently taking off too much or not placing enough insulation into a part or fitting but wouldn't that show up on a visual inspection? Also "frayed wire", was it braided wire, copper or aluminum? Wouldn't an arc in a low voltage circuit like a sensor shut down the circuit and/or trip a warning light/alarm which theoretically would've been on a black box read out even years ago? Or was this a higher voltage circuit that might tolerate more deviation in power?

That and the explosive residue theory. I can see a recent explosion embedding or bonding residue to various surfaces but existing RESIDUE like a liquid syrup or powder surviving an explosion, fire and plunge into salt water along with all the other physical trauma to the parts of surfaces? Didn't they find "residue" on the fuselage AND seats(did they hide material in or a seat during the exercise?)

It just seems like they worked too hard on this theory.
 
There is a very good video of this accident depicting the issue of the wiring scenario described in my above post. Perhaps "frayed" was not the perfect word, but the intent to describe what happen was. Located near the center gas tank is a junction block where wires meet. The insulation on those wires over time become worn and allows for arching to go outside of the wires. The vapor from the fuel of the other two tanks were present when the arching took place and ignited causing an explosion. This in turned allowed for separation of the first class and cockpit section of the aircraft, which then fell into the ocean and probably killing the people in those sections almost immediately. The remaining passengers either died from being ejected or torn from their seats, had their necks snapped from the explosion, or died some other type of brutal death.

Today, the center tank is still void of fuel, except they have now filled the tank with an inert gas that in turn would not permit fuel vapors to accumulate in the center tank. I also want to mention that there was another plane in the area that was arriving into NYC at the time (Eastwind Airlines) that radioed to the tower that they witnessed the explosion. Unlike the ground witnesses, the Captain that saw the explosion stated that he did not see a trailing line of smoke, like that from a missile, but that did not stop the rumors from happening that a missile from the nearby Navy maneuvers that were going on at the time.

It had to be a horrible death for those that were not killed instantly. When I flew into or out of the New York area and along the same glide path that TWA Flight 800 was on that evening, I would often say a silent prayer that nothing like that would ever happen again. One of the the Captains on that flight was Steven Snyder. He was considered one of the finest 747 pilots in the business and had worked for TWA for many years. Capt. Snyder was the person that came up with the protocol for leaving the center fuel tank empty to save weight and money for such a long flight.

I have watched this video several times because this accident, for whatever reason, has haunted me since it happened.

 
Thanks for the video. The frayed wire theory starts at approximately 18:35. I'm still having some problem with that diagram/recreation picture showing the "frayed" wires in a span of wire & cables. If anything cracked or deteriorated wire insulation should've been used. Also most electrical codes, even older ones required some kind of separation from high and low voltage which could be insulated wire. Low voltage cables such as data or old phone cables had insulation around individual wires which had their own insulation. Coming from cockpit I assume there were some low voltage cables. So that arching to would've had to pass through multiple layers of wire insulation. Also the high voltage could have caused interference on the low voltage wire/circuits without proper insulation & grounded wiring but that would've shown up as an issue much earlier in the plane's life span.

Also noted in the video were previous reports or observations of powers surges and/or flickering lights. How come other flights only had flickering lights and 800 had an explosion. Even back then I can't believe a lot of these circuits weren't fused inline or at a panel. A lot of electrical circuits used components that would not only fail during a power surge but they would become damaged/useless and not pass any voltage.

But now we're back to that junction box at the fuel tank. Again how do sparks fly out like that. Most electrical codes require a connection point to be sealed off or placed in an box. Cables/wires are usually placed in a collar and/or gasket to prevent them from being pulled or slip out and to prevent anything getting in or out. Now may be that box didn't have a good seal and fumes got into the box itself but that open would've been so small that any fumes might have caused a slower burn and not an explosion.

If anything maybe those cables were physically moved or damaged during maintenance and no one paid attention after they were finished. Same plane same layouts similar problems especially with the same maintenance crews or training. Apparently no one paid attention to those previous power surges either. I would say maybe a cover up of a maintenance issue but they basically admitted that using this scenario.

My biggest issues are still frayed" and that junction box throwing sparks like a firework.
 
Another issue brought up from the pilot in the article was that FBI kept on kicking people out of the hanger. FBI and crime scene evidence not a good combination through the 1990s.

This is just the most recent example of negligent if not corrupt FBI interpretation and/or handling of crime scene evidence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

Even around the time of the OJ trial in the 1990s it came out that FBI lab had botched much of the evidence sent to them or what they handled. Not to say every agent or evidence tech was corrupt in the 1990s but the entire bureau had their share of issues. One must really question why the FBI had such tight control over the hanger/crime scene official or not. That should've been an NTSB show with the FBI there for assistance only.
 
First, keep in mind that there are miles of wiring in a jumbo jet. There was no requirement at that time for checking the wiring, so the wiring may have been 20 years old (and maybe older) and never been checked. When I would taxi out to the runway, I would often switch my power from its engine turbine source to the APU (auxiliary power unit), which is a backup system that is used if we should lose power while in the air. This act would also cause the lights to 'flicker' as well as the a/c to shut down momentarily. I am sure that you may have experienced this while taxiing to the runway or while sitting at the gate. This is on every start up check list that I am aware of. There is a whole lot more to it than that, but you get my drift, I am sure.

Also, keep in mind that TWA had just emerged from their second bankruptcy and were in no position to spend any more money than necessary to operate their planes and/or airline. It was not a good time for TWA. I did associate with some of their pilots and the one fellow told me during a hangar meeting that he was just glad to get his check. Carl Icahn took everything he could from TWA just for the money. He had no intention of turning the airline around to make it profitable He was a corporate raider through and through. He never had any respect from anyone in the airline business. He raided the profits and stole as much of their retirement fund that he could get away with.

The NTSB does not investigate an accident that may have been caused by terrorism or any type of ordinance. That is left up to the FBI. The reason why no other people were allowed to be snooping around was because they did not want the crime scene compromised. If anyone was allowed to snoop around, it may have been easy to toss a little gunpowder on the wreckage just to add to the controversy and help make it a great story. No one can be trusted.

The only thing that I remember about the O.J. trail that was considered botched was when Cellmark Labs (I believe it was) screwed up the DNA testing. I have a lot of faith in the FBI. Being in the Baltimore-Washington area for many years, I have had the opportunity to speak with several agents. They are very committed to their jobs as they should be and I have never thought to be deceived by any of them. I am sure that there are some people that have an alternate opinion of them.

This crash has haunted me for years. I studied it and would have loved to have been included in the investigation, which I think took four years. More was learned from that crash than any other. I think what bothers me the most isn't the fact that it should never have happened, but the loss of so many lives and the manner in which they died. It must have been absolutely horrible. When I flew, I took every precaution that I could think of to secure my passengers a safe ride.
 
oldman said:
This event was investigated many times over. Initially, it was thought to be a tracer missile from one of the ships or from on land while the military (Navy) was performing exercises. It was later discovered that NO ordinance from anywhere in that area was fired on that particular evening. There were traces of plastic explosive found within the recovered wreckage. However, it was also discovered that just a few weeks previously, that particular jet had been used to house some small amounts of a plastic explosive as part of the terrorist training for bomb sniffing dogs. The explosives, of course, were all removed, but the explanation was that some of the explosive may have leaked from the boxes, thus allowing for the discovery of the plastic explosive during the crash investigation.

Flight 800, which came in from Greece, sat on the tarmac in New York City at JFK Airport during a very hot July day for two and a half to three hours. I can't remember all of the details, but the final reason given for the explosion in mid-air was due to the center gas tank being allowed to remain empty allowing for the vapors from the remaining two tanks to accumulate in that open space. This was done to help lighten the aircraft to keep costs down. The pilot that day was a fellow with the last name of Snider. I can't remember his first name. This was a protocol that he developed to save airlines money.

The instruments and mechanical features, including the instruments (analog) on that aircraft were old and never updated. Unfortunately, neither was the wiring. There is a junction block located alongside the middle fuel tank. Because the old wiring may have been a bit frayed, the inspectors who tested their theory reported that there was an arc, or short circuit created from the loss of insulation on the old wiring allowing for the explosion of the vapors. The theory was tested and retested and proved to be very similar as to what had happened to Flight 800. Today, the same protocol on B-747's is used. However, the center tank is now filled with inert gases to prevent the center tank with filling of oxygen and to prevent explosions because there should be no vapors omitting from the inert gasses and the space that once was allowed to contain vapors no longer exists.

The different theories will continue to be told, just like the Kennedy assassination. It was a horrific day for the families of the victims. There was also a French high school class from Montoursville, PA, which was flying to Paris, the first stop for Flight 800 before going on to Rome. The ironic part of this whole situation was that this was to be the final flight for this particular TWA Boeing 747.
Click to expand...
That's a lie, it was proven the bomb sniffing dog was never in that plane. If you understand anything about avionics, you'll understand there's no wiring that could have caused this explosion. I encourage everyone to watch TWA Flight 800 an Epix documentary - it's currently on Tubi
 
I don't think flying a political candidate around is a qualification for being an air accident investigator. And especially an "investigator" not even closely associated with the investigation. I can't disprove his claims, but neither can I disprove Flight 800 wasn't hit by a Romulan space probe. But I think the guys, who actually examined and conducted the investigation had a better idea of what happened. And there's nothing better than an online conspiracy quest.
 
Last edited:
Blondiee10 said:
That's a lie, it was proven the bomb sniffing dog was never in that plane. If you understand anything about avionics, you'll understand there's no wiring that could have caused this explosion. I encourage everyone to watch TWA Flight 800 an Epix documentary - it's currently on Tubi
Click to expand...
I think oldman will chime in later, but because he is my friend I can honestly tell you that he does not lie. As a state cop for 37 years, I can spot a liar and he has never given me any indication that he fits the mold of a liar.

The other fact is that oldman was a pilot for quite a few years at United Airlines. He knows aviation, which includes “avionics.” He has more awards and certificates of merit sitting around his house from United, the NTSB and the FAA than I have pairs of socks and believe me, I have a lot of socks.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
I don't think flying a political candidate around is a qualification for being an air accident investigator. And especially an "investigator" not even closely associated with the investigation. I can't disprove his claims, but neither can I disprove Flight 800 wasn't hit by a Romulan space probe. But I think the guys, who actually examined and conducted the investigation had a better idea of what happened. And there's nothing better than an online conspiracy quest.
Click to expand...
Some of those investigators have been asking for a new probe since 2013 because some newer evidence might indicate a missile strike.

Former TWA Flight 800 investigators want new probe

As new or different evidence comes in it could fuel different theories or reinforce the old official version.
 
Last edited:
Blondiee10 said:
That's a lie, it was proven the bomb sniffing dog was never in that plane. If you understand anything about avionics, you'll understand there's no wiring that could have caused this explosion. I encourage everyone to watch TWA Flight 800 an Epix documentary - it's currently on Tubi
Click to expand...
I don't argue about aviation. I flew for United for 33 years and am pretty well knowledgeable with avionics. I wrote what was on the NTSB report that I read 10 years after the accident. All 230 bodies (218 Passengers + 12 crew) or parts of bodies were recovered and each body or body part was checked for any type of bomb or missile explosive materials. None were found.

The plane was used earlier to train bomb sniffing dogs. Packs of explosives were hidden randomly inside the plane for the dogs to find. According to the NTSB, this was the reason why there were some samples of explosives found in the debris.

After the accident, there were several theories going around as to what caused the plane to break apart and crash into the water below. Here are a few that I remember hearing; Plane was struck buy a missile launched from Moriches Inlet by the U.S. Navy, another author wrote that a bolide, (meteor), exploded near the plane and brought the plane down, and yet another story was the plane had came in contact with an Electromagnetic Interference of some type. I'm sure there are more conspiracy stories around.

To end this post, I want to let you know that I am no liar, although I do make mistakes and I took exception to the fact that you questioned my veracity to having knowledge regarding avionics. I was very offended. You know nothing about me, yet you are making claims about my credibility. I am being kind. You make untrue claims about some of the other people on this forum and you may have to change your name. I have been on this forum for 12 years and you are the first person I ever put on Ignore. If you come back, you may want to tread softly.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top