On a serious note, I’ve always believed that TWA 800 was shot down.
No, you don’t get the freaking benefit of the doubt when you push a bullshit conspiracy theory whether you call yourself a “whistleblower” or not. What’s so hard to understand about that?
I’ve been telling people for years those crazy laws will blow up in people’s faces.
These guys were members of the original investigation team. Isn’t that the closest you can get to evidence? Aren’t they as close to the evidence as, say, Edward Snowden?
Or, the theory is rejected just on the basis that it’s… well, bullshit?
Why?
This is just a version of a new book tour, except these guys are promoting a documentary they have made. What the hell took these “whistle blowers” 17 years to get to this point. Cash would be my guess. Chasing that cash cow.
If the NTSB refuses to re-open the investigation then there is something to hide.
Wait until the facts get old, and eyewitness memories fade, then claim a cover up to sell your product.
It’s just like Roswell all over again! 
Yeah who are you gonna believe- some guys trying to promote a documentary almost 20 years after the fact or the results of a prolonged contemporary investigation by a large number of experts? Riddle me that one, smart guy…
I think that’s a very good reason to reject a theory. In fact it’s the best possible reason. Sorry, this is not my first conspiracy theory rodeo. (By the way that’s not a very fun rodeo.) A couple of investigators making a counterclaim and talking about a coverup many years after the fact doesn’t strike me as unusual or in any way credible.
I work at a failure analysis lab at the AF, and a bunch of my colleagues were called in to assist the Flight 800 investigation. (I wasn’t working here in 1996, so I wasn’t involved.) These guys are no-nonsense engineers with advanced degrees in EE, ME, and metallurgy, and world-class experts at failure analysis. They visited the reconstruction site on numerous occasions, inspected the physical evidence, and reviewed test data (chemical analysis, structural analysis, etc.).
Bottom line: a missile did *not *bring down Flight 800. The center fuel tank blew up. All of the physical evidence examined supported this. One obvious clue was that there was no hole in the center fuel tank - or anywhere else in the aircraft - that a missile would have created.
I vote cranks + money grabbers.
They were awfully close to the evidence in 1996. They don’t seem to be very close to it now. Hank Hughes, for example, was already bitching about the conduct of the investigation in 1999, but conspicuously absent is any mention of a cover-up.
Just out of curiosity, would such a hole look appreciably different from one created by an explosion inside the tank by the time the plane had broken up and hit the water?
IANAExpert on air crashes, but it occurs to me that an entry hole would look a lot different from an exit hole. Y’think?
Have you read this? It’s only 341 pages. Until you have read all 341, you might want to reserve judgement.
Go on, read it. We can wait.
I remember that thread. That’s when I learned that ignorance fights back.
If a missile was just a projectile, sure - but it’s not. It’s a delivery system for an explosive warhead.
Another was that the walls of the tank all blew outward. So how did the missile get in there?
So it would be an innie, then an outie? Any way that could leave some evidence behind?
Yes.
Was talking with the metallurgist today who was active in the investigation. (As you can imagine, this news story has created a lot of buzz around the lab today. And *lots *of laughter.) He examined the fuel tank, and said it blew apart along the seams. (I think he said four seams, but not sure.) There was no hole in the center tank.
That might be the one about how the WTC was brought down by the US Postal Service and their anti-gravity bombs.
Hey man, don’t slag on the post office’s AGBs! That shit’s ferreals.
Isn’t it fascinating how time seems to make memories that weren’t there in the first place? And investigators who had no doubts when they were close to the evidence and had all the time in the world to examine it now think that their conclusions were faulty when they can no longer examine it?
And…wait, I see some Men in Black at my door…get back to you later.
I will be very surprised if the former “investigators” they’re referring to have the necessary credentials to make such a claim and were active in the actual investigation.