6 ms·

I was always curious about how so many witnesses saw a streak of light shoot up to the plane which then exploded. I was never convinced by the video the CIA rel

I was always curious about how so many witnesses saw a streak of light shoot up to the plane which then exploded. I was never convinced by the video the CIA released that explained what those witnesses actually saw was a trail of burning jet fuel going away from the plane.

ceejayoz 4y ago
The theory isn't just "it's burning jet fuel", though; it's that the plane broke apart, and that the now tail-heavy back section with the wings flew upwards as the nose fell to the water. It's not an insane idea, and is at least partially backed by radar data.
- tremon 4y ago
  Not an insane idea? How much lift can a pair of wings generate without thrust or stabilization? If the plane broke apart in mid-air, as you say, the engines would have shut down immediately. The only "thrust" the back section had remaining is the inertial energy from its moving mass. Without attitude control and with a huge gaping hole in the front acting as an air brake, I struggle to see how the plane could have climbed any more than a few meters before stalling.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    If it were that obvious, cover-up would be impossible. You’d have had hundreds of aeronautical engineers screaming to everyone who’d listen.
    - hammock 4y ago
      Well there were thousands of architects and engineers screaming ideas about 9/11. Doesn’t mean much https://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/Record/7884068/File/Document https://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/Record/7884068/File/Docume...
  - growse 4y ago
    > I struggle to see how the plane could have climbed any more than a few meters before stalling. This is because you understand neither aerodynamics, or what happens to planes during failures, specifically big ones where when the front falls off. Thankfully, other people do.
    - absolutelynobo 4y ago
      This is not a good-faith comment. This is incredibly dismissive without providing any supporting information. Do better.
      - growse 4y ago
        Sorry, just bored of the self-centered "I don't understand this thing, so therefore it can't be true" mentality that seems to be a common trait across most conspiracy theorists.
csharpminor 4y ago
Yeah the fact that it was the CIA releasing the video always seemed like a red flag to me. Why were they even involved in the investigation? Why didn’t those statements come from the FAA?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  That's readily answerable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 > At the start of FBI's investigation, because of the possibility that international terrorists might have been involved, assistance was requested from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). > Why didn’t those statements come from the FAA? They wouldn't normally; without any potential of criminal activity, they'd come from the NTSB.
  - csharpminor 4y ago
    So why did the CIA produce a video about the fuel tank exploding, when that is something clearly within the purview of the NTSB? Why did they continue to devote resources when it was established that it was not a terrorist attack? Aviation incident analysis is not one of the CIA’s core competencies, but propaganda is.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Incident analysis - especially where explosives are concerned - is absolutely something the CIA does regularly. (As is causing such incidents.) If I asked the CIA to determine if something was enemy(ish, in this case) action, I'd expect to get a fairly detailed report explaining why or why not back. I'm skeptical until they provide some details on the FOIL documents received. The NTSB worked for four years and released a report, as expected.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        Wouldn’t the CIA first ask if you needed it to be or not be enemy action?
krolden 4y ago
So this tells us its OK to lie as long as 200 people die and you can tie up the evidence for a couple decades. I'll remember that when I'm teaching my kids its bad to lie about stealing an extra cookie. Thanks CIA, etc
- orangepurple 4y ago
  People still believe the Pearl Harbor attack was an inevitable occurrence or a radar detection and communications problem almost 100 years later. President Roosevelt told General Marshall to send a message to the Hawaiian commanders: "Don't interfere with Japan's overt act of war. The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act." Maybe in 100 years the questions and evidence presented in the 5 hour documentary "September 11: The New Pearl Harbor (2013)" will be answered and/or justified.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Sebguer 4y ago
    Can you source that quote? The closest I can find that made it to actual commanders is: "If hostilities cannot repeat not be avoided the United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act. This policy should not repeat not be construed as restricting you to a course of action that might jeopardize your defense." Which is very different from the conspiratorial intent you're implying.
    - orangepurple 4y ago
      Yep, I believe that's the exact quote. The US started putting impossible demands on Japan to suffocate them economically and militarily and when it was obvious that Japan was pushed to the breaking point the attack on Pearl Harbor was "allowed" to justify the ensuing war back home. Interestingly I see a lot of parallels in the war in Ukraine right now. The US and EU started arming bordering countries and applying extreme economic sanctions on Russia in rapid succession and "everyone" was surprised that the invasion occurred. Now everyone sees Russia as the overt oppressor. Mission accomplished? https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/did-the-us-provoke-japans-attack-on-pearl-harbor/ https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/did-the-us-provoke-japans-...

ceejayoz 4y ago

The theory isn't just "it's burning jet fuel", though; it's that the plane broke apart, and that the now tail-heavy back section with the wings flew upwards as the nose fell to the water. It's not an insane idea, and is at least partially backed by radar data.

tremon 4y ago
Not an insane idea? How much lift can a pair of wings generate without thrust or stabilization? If the plane broke apart in mid-air, as you say, the engines would have shut down immediately. The only "thrust" the back section had remaining is the inertial energy from its moving mass. Without attitude control and with a huge gaping hole in the front acting as an air brake, I struggle to see how the plane could have climbed any more than a few meters before stalling.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  If it were that obvious, cover-up would be impossible. You’d have had hundreds of aeronautical engineers screaming to everyone who’d listen.
  - hammock 4y ago
    Well there were thousands of architects and engineers screaming ideas about 9/11. Doesn’t mean much https://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/Record/7884068/File/Document https://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/Record/7884068/File/Docume...
- growse 4y ago
  > I struggle to see how the plane could have climbed any more than a few meters before stalling. This is because you understand neither aerodynamics, or what happens to planes during failures, specifically big ones where when the front falls off. Thankfully, other people do.
  - absolutelynobo 4y ago
    This is not a good-faith comment. This is incredibly dismissive without providing any supporting information. Do better.
    - growse 4y ago
      Sorry, just bored of the self-centered "I don't understand this thing, so therefore it can't be true" mentality that seems to be a common trait across most conspiracy theorists.

csharpminor 4y ago

Yeah the fact that it was the CIA releasing the video always seemed like a red flag to me. Why were they even involved in the investigation? Why didn’t those statements come from the FAA?

ceejayoz 4y ago
That's readily answerable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 > At the start of FBI's investigation, because of the possibility that international terrorists might have been involved, assistance was requested from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). > Why didn’t those statements come from the FAA? They wouldn't normally; without any potential of criminal activity, they'd come from the NTSB.
- csharpminor 4y ago
  So why did the CIA produce a video about the fuel tank exploding, when that is something clearly within the purview of the NTSB? Why did they continue to devote resources when it was established that it was not a terrorist attack? Aviation incident analysis is not one of the CIA’s core competencies, but propaganda is.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Incident analysis - especially where explosives are concerned - is absolutely something the CIA does regularly. (As is causing such incidents.) If I asked the CIA to determine if something was enemy(ish, in this case) action, I'd expect to get a fairly detailed report explaining why or why not back. I'm skeptical until they provide some details on the FOIL documents received. The NTSB worked for four years and released a report, as expected.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Wouldn’t the CIA first ask if you needed it to be or not be enemy action?

krolden 4y ago

So this tells us its OK to lie as long as 200 people die and you can tie up the evidence for a couple decades. I'll remember that when I'm teaching my kids its bad to lie about stealing an extra cookie. Thanks CIA, etc

orangepurple 4y ago
People still believe the Pearl Harbor attack was an inevitable occurrence or a radar detection and communications problem almost 100 years later. President Roosevelt told General Marshall to send a message to the Hawaiian commanders: "Don't interfere with Japan's overt act of war. The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act." Maybe in 100 years the questions and evidence presented in the 5 hour documentary "September 11: The New Pearl Harbor (2013)" will be answered and/or justified.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Sebguer 4y ago
  Can you source that quote? The closest I can find that made it to actual commanders is: "If hostilities cannot repeat not be avoided the United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act. This policy should not repeat not be construed as restricting you to a course of action that might jeopardize your defense." Which is very different from the conspiratorial intent you're implying.
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    Yep, I believe that's the exact quote. The US started putting impossible demands on Japan to suffocate them economically and militarily and when it was obvious that Japan was pushed to the breaking point the attack on Pearl Harbor was "allowed" to justify the ensuing war back home. Interestingly I see a lot of parallels in the war in Ukraine right now. The US and EU started arming bordering countries and applying extreme economic sanctions on Russia in rapid succession and "everyone" was surprised that the invasion occurred. Now everyone sees Russia as the overt oppressor. Mission accomplished? https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/did-the-us-provoke-japans-attack-on-pearl-harbor/ https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/did-the-us-provoke-japans-...