Conspiracy Theory holds Little Rationale Basis for Reopening the TWA 800 NTSB Report

Share this article: FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

ARTICLE: Three Reasons to Doubt the TWA Flight 800 Conspiracy Theory

062813a

Conspiracy theorists had a more arguable claim in the ‘50s and ‘60s when surreptitious communications and disappearing documents were possible. Ever since the electronic age, the ability of some high ranking official to initiate an effort to fool the public has diminished. When the veil of secrecy would envelope several layers of NTSB officials, the chain of command of the FBI, a variety of disciplines of the FAA (air traffic, accident investigation, aircraft certification), the military, the Coast Guard, first responders and beyond, the trail of communications multiplies the likelihood of disclosure. Also with so many people in the circle of knowledge, it is increasingly possible that someone would break the code of silence.

The NTSB proceedings are exceptionally transparent from the early investigative stage, to the interim research, testing and modeling phases and finally to the final hearing. The NTSB report was exhaustive (342 pages long) and examined many possible theories. One hypothesis was the missile strike propounded by the current petitioners. Perhaps most impressively from an analytical standpoint, the NTSB took the thousands of airframe pieces recovered and recreated the hull of the B-747. That reassembled body conclusively proved that no external object pierced the aircraft and that the explosion initiated form the interior.

The linked Popular Mechanics article examines three key findings of the NTSB’s TWA 800 report: blast holes (mentioned above), radar and fuel tank. From his mechanical expertise, the author’s analysis is interesting reading.

On a parallel development, former NTSB officials prognosticate that there is little chance that the Board will grant the request to reopen the TWA 800 decision. The Board alumni reviewed the “new” evidence and found that it is not sufficient to merit reassessment.

Share this article: FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.