BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Micransix Crappy film

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

gllwolf58 One review on here takes the approach that "opinions predominate, facts are scarce." And yet in this "review", the author states, "It is clear that evidence that disproves the conspiracy theory is edited out." Nice opinion, but what facts are you saying are left out? He does not say. Cute.He continues, "Eye witnesses are presented as completely credible when research has shown that they are almost the least reliable evidence." Again, what research? You state none. I've read the eye witness accounts, separate from this film. When hundreds of people all see the same thing happen, from various vantage points, that makes them THE reliable evidence of what transpired. Not your phantom "research".Next comes the assertion that "body language indicates they are lying". Based upon what? You just typing it on a forum board makes what you say credible? Hardly. In the interviews, some look to be uncomfortable. But is that an indication of lying, or of recalling of a singular traumatic experience that may just haunt these people still? Again, not saying what I say is 100% accurate, but I am saying your take on their body language is from their lying is 100% false.In the end, you have a film that paints a very disturbing portrait of a government investigation that is lead by the wrong agency. That agency is not qualified to investigate the crash/explosion/loss of a commercial airliner. I also found it odd that the person in charge of the agency who should of been leading the investigation, hints that eyewitnesses were not called to testify before the government because that was part of the "FBI's criminal investigation". "Criminal investigation"? If it was an "accident", what crime could there have been? No, someone wanted this investigation "handled". My only problem with this documentary is the neglect of the possibilities as to "why" things happened. If it was a missile(s) then who shot them? If it were terrorists why cover it up? We'd already had a terroristic attack on our soil, so its not like it was the first time. The question that comes to my mind, is who was on the plane, and who didn't want them to leave the country? If it had had that, then you can say it was a conspiracy theory. As it stands, this movie is nothing more than a showing of the goofs, misdeeds, lies or utter stupidity of those whose job it wasn't to investigate this incident and the way they botched it.

salmon62 I wanted to believe that the scientist (physicist) who produced this documentary was right. I knew the official cause of the explosion, but always wondered if there had been something more menacing involved. This documentary is compelling.The problem is that the producer cherry-picks data and omits other data to support his hypothesis that a missile or similar rocket brought down the aircraft. In forming scientific hypotheses, the scientist is required to include all possible alternatives to results supporting his/her hypothesis.In TWA Flight 800 we hear all sorts of speculation from the producer and his witnesses. Together, the story presented is credible----- that a missile (described specifically by dozens of eye-witnesses on the ground) brought down Flight 800, and, that the government----- the FBI, NTSB, and DOD conspired to conclude that the cause was an explosion in the center wing fuel tank of the plane. The producer presents "chemical splatter" evidence on pieces of the recovered plane, explosive residue found on the parts, and variable injuries to passengers in different parts of the plane as evidence of an external explosive.Unfortunately, the producer fails to include in his documentary a very telling recorded comment (on the cockpit recorder) by the pilot about an inaccurate "crazy" reading of the fuel gauge of the #4 engine. This is critical because the NTSB speculated that the explosion was caused by an ignition source---probably fuel gauge sensor or (similarly located) wiring degradation/malfunction..In addition, the producer omits that there were previous center wing fuel tank explosions caused by the ignition of gas vapors in Boeing products, Avianca and Philippine Airlines for starters. These prior events are not referenced. This is critical because on the day of the crash of Flight 800, the plane was delayed over an hour with the air conditioning units running due to the hot weather. The units are located under the center wing fuel tank and would have contributed to the vapor buildup. This is what happened in the Philippine Airlines explosion, which occurred on the ground with the engines off.The producers do include that the plane was supposedly used for police canine training where explosive residues were used to train the police dogs on the plane at the airport, but he tries to refute that this training exercise took place as documented, casting doubt on the source of explosive residues from a benign source. Instead, he omits that the jet was used in 1991 to transport military equipment and troops exposed to explosive residue from the Gulf.Once I learned of these omissions, I could not believe anything the movie asked me to believe.While the official report can't say "with certainty" that the wiring in the center wing fuel tank caused the explosion, it does show significant evidence that this is the likely source of the ignition.As for the hundreds of well-meaning witnesses who believed that they saw a missile streaking up and striking the plane, well, all I can say is that eyewitness accounts are the LEAST reliable evidence.Once you look at other sources of information about the crash of flight 800, it is apparent that the likely scenario is the same as what was presented by the NTSB after four years of exhaustive investigation.

jackwolf This documentary on the TWA 800 air disaster provides more than enough evidence to cast doubt on the official investigation and the ludicrous explanation that was made up out of thin air to explain why this fully loaded airliner ended up in the Atlantic Ocean.Anyone who has studied the TWA 800 event already knows that the official conclusion is completely absurd. Apparently we're to believe that a faulty wire caused the central fuel tank to explode. Yes, the FBI, CIA, and much of our government thinks the average citizen is actually dumb enough to accept this ridiculously implausible and unsubstantiated conclusion. Unfortunately much of the population accepted it without question and moved on with their lives, unaware of the treasonous and deceitful cover- up that was conducted by persons within the FBI, CIA, and NTSB. Missiles brought that plane down. The citizens demand to know why!

d00gie_B I had heard a few weeks ago that a number of investigators of the Flight 800 disaster had come out publicly about their "reservations" about the official conclusions of the NTSB investigation. I did not, however, realize that there was a documentary that had been made, detailing the substance of those "reservations". Serendipity, and perhaps Fate, led me to be searching my DVR for something to watch at 3 am, whereupon I chanced to see this title. Hmmmm...*** Spoiler Alert? *** This documentary is unique, as far as I know, in its inclusion of high-level technical officials involved in an actual investigation, giving very specific details (technical and otherwise) of a cover-up as it happened. For this alone is this film compelling in the extreme.In addition to this, the broad cross-section of eyewitness accounts, technical data, and media footage demonstrates convincingly that not only did Flight 800 *not* explode due to a center wing tank anomaly, but that 3 (yes, *three*) different plumes/flares/etc. were witnessed by multiple (i.e. **many**) witnesses interacting with the doomed airliner, eyewitness accounts which were excluded from the NTSB investigation, an apparently unique circumstance, according to the seasoned investigators. Also, the investigators' assertions of very specific pieces of evidence and analyses which simply "disappeared" from or were plainly modified at the closed investigation hangar are greatly disturbing. Finally, the skew of the media coverage of the event and investigation relative to the asserted facts is impossible to discount as merely "reportage of the story".The final and most explosive (pun intended) evidence in the sickening array of exposed lies is the radar return immediately after the explosion of the plane showing fragments at a distance which are consistent *only* with a velocity of about Mach 4 (~3000 mi/h), a velocity which could not be reached by anything other than a rocket or a high-explosive detonation.In a larger context, this unique exposition of official skullduggery, malfeasance, and frankly, Evil, should hopefully shake the cobwebs loose from a new contingent of the un-awake sheeple enough to begin to make them question *other* as-yet-unsatisfactorily-explained "disasters". Such as World Trade Center Building 7.