I flew that one from STL-HNL and back in April of 1992. I know because the picture of the plane home from Hawaii was the last photo we took. It captured the number clearly in the front. N93119. A week after TWA 800 crashed, I dug up the picture to check the number...you talk about chills. God rest their souls.
I sat on the bench that the 1996 Olympic bomber put his bomb under just 6hrs before he did it, have a picture its that same eerie weird feeling you get im sure. When you are in an exact spot that something horrible happens to in the future its a strange feeling.
@@yb6. It wasn’t a missile, it was an explosion caused by a malfunctioning air conditioning unit during a delay on the ground at JFK. The packs had been running for multiple hours during the delay which heated the fuel in the center fuel tank, turning it into vapor. There was then a short circuit which caused sparks to fall into the center fuel tank, igniting the vapor, causing an explosion that ultimately ripped the plane apart.
Hard to believe that this exact same plane would later be involved in one of the most horrific aviation disasters in history. Rest in peace to those on board TWA 800.
They don't pop off the ground like the Cessnas. I remember transitioning to larger aircraft and setting the pitch after rotation and letting the aircraft fly off the ground when she was ready. He looked pretty heavy. Love the old JT-9D. Loud for a high bypass. For late 60's/early 70's technology, very low smoke. Great video. I'll never believe that CIA film...ever.
God Bless N93119 and my f/a brothers and sisters on 800....it was a bad day for all of us at TWA....I worked this 74 in 84 a year before I retired....it was the last 74 I would work....a great loss....prayers and thoughts to the passengers families and thoughts and prayers to the crew and f/a's...
Im a late night freight driver on a 74-8, one of the guys I fly w/ was a former flight engineer for TWA on the 74's and knew the crew very well. The aviation community driving the queen of the skies is a small community (for those of us that are left) and our numbers keep shrinking
When everyone heard about TWA's explosion for the first time, it shattered everyone's hearts forever and to this day, it remains and haunts us every now and then! R.I.P to the souls onboard.
@@TMBpk The official version tells otherwise and there is no hard evidence for the rocket theory. It's not like 9/11 where simple physics help you to understand that the story is wrong.
@@friendlyreptile9931 I was not on the team at Calverton. I was in contact with members of the IAM and TWA engineer teams. Some very strange things happened there. Items identified and put in place were gone the next morning. One of the engineers had a discussion with an FBI man about high pressure cutting. After some resistance the FBI man took him to a locked sample room and showed him samples of bomb damage. Yes the FBI had a locked room there. One of the IAM team identified a part. He was taking it to place in position, an FBI agent took it at GUN point. They never recovered any material from a three foot square area where the crack started. The center tank forward bulkhead was bent down. The water tank on the bulkhead was intack. The tank was not smashed on the cargo floor. The nose section was already gone!. I am familiar with the USAF center tank explosion. It was caused by a fault with the MD1 fuel quantity tester. No one I know on the team thinks the explanation is correct. They just cannot find an answer either. I could go on.
This gave a chill down my spine. Flew JFK - LHR on this bird about a fortnight before this happened. And i wasn't even booked on TWA. I should have flown back with KU that day, but i got bounced (along with 8 other passengers) onto the TWA flight. I remember looking in my JP at the time, and thinking that this aircraft was an NTU for the Iranian Air Force ! Fantastic flight and a surpisingly clean aircraft inside and the crew were fantastic. I got pics of the cabin as we were boarding. RIP to all the lives lost that day in that catastrophic accident. So sad.
Wow that’s so cool but creepy you got to go inside the same plane of the accident! I’ve been searching for photos of the interior of that plane would love if u still have them for me to see. Thanks :)
She was built for Eastern Airlines, but they cancelled their 747 orders, so she was configured to TWA's "- 131" spec, and delivered to them. They even "plugged" all but three upper deck windows on each side, so she had the appearance of the older 100 series 747s in their fleet. Interesting that the Iran Air Force didn't take her up either. I always wondered why TWA had a few 747s leased/sold to them at the time. Bad economy, or the oil crisis perhaps?
@@everettvincent1688 Hi. They are amongst a large batch of photograph's that i still need to get scanned and transferred onto a disc. All interior shots of the 70's 80's & 90's. It'll give me something to do over christmas i think.
So wait, you ended up getting pictures of the interior of the craft more or less than a month before it fell out of the sky? That seems really eerie but also quite fascinating at the same time. Have you since scanned these images?
My first plane ride ever was on a TWA 747 in March or April of 1970. They were pretty new then, and TWA was the first operator to place them in domestic service. I remember the pilot telling us and approach to JFK that we had nearly enough fuel to fly all the way back to Los Angeles! I was the subject of much envy by my high school classmates upon my return.
My first flight ever was on a TWA 747 from JFK to LAX back in June of 1975..I was 14 then..a graduation gift from Mom before high school to visit family out west. Loved that plane..great flight,great meals..those were the days,when flying was a royal experience and people were civilized.. ✈ 👍🤔
@@valentinooliveri3012 for about 8 months TWA offered two private rooms in the hump (the "Captain's Deck" they called it) which must have felt like flying as royalty almost. It didn't last long though
Just before she spent 25 years in retirement as a display ornament. She'd be a 50 year old 747 today (possibly scrapped or used in aerial fire fighting). God speed ol girl.
Yeah but do you know what happened on July 17th 1996. If you don't, n93119, operating as flight 800, took of at 8:19pm, nearly an hour behind schedule, at 8:32pm, the aircraft disappeared off the radar and an Eastwind flight reported an explosion at 13000 feet, a short circuit in the center wing tank ignited fuel vapors and blew the 747 out of the sky, killing 230 people
Thank you so much for this video dude. It's one thing to be able to see photos of the plane that crashed as Flight 800, but to actually be able to hear it breathing is just....amazing and creepy. What year was this shot taken? It looks like sometime in the 1990s as the black antiflash panel under the cockpit isn't there. As a life-long resident of STL, I miss seeing and hearing the TWA jumbos. Flight 800 was a tragedy that struck me to the core...I was in disbelief when it happened.
Wow. My parents were good friends with the flight engineer on that fatal flight, Ollie Krick. My dad told me a story about a week prior to the accident, he had pulled up in front of my parent’s house with a brand new car.
As do I. I remember where I was, what I was doing, what the weather was like, etc. As a 9 year old that loved TWA and their 747s, this incident was extremely traumatic for me and would prompt me to become an aviation fanatic.
It very surreal looking at this plane at this place and time, knowing that in 5yrs time this flight will meet a horrific demise. Thank you very showing
I worked on these early 747’s. Including replacing the old wiring and fuel quantity sending units in the fuel tanks. In overhaul we entered these 747 fuel tanks for repairs. The center tank is huge. I also worked on 747 cargo doors after the cargo door flew off the airplane in Hawaii.
Ummm, No you didn't, there Junkyard. The Series 100 classic 747's all had a service life and none of the FQIS units or wiring, were ever in need of nor were ever replaced. They were all OEM. That is listed in the TWA maintenance logs for N93119. As well, the investigators having retrieved the FQIS units in the wreckage checked all of the units, for integrity and there were no issues with any of the units. The 'cargo door' issue was due to a ground crew incompetency issue of failing to properly and, assure the security of the cargo door.
the wires were in very bad shape their plastic dried and cracked the tragedy could had happened at any moment the plane was used too much on plenty of flights with several stops and TWA planes in the 90s had minimal care and repairs , if you don't take care properly of a plane the plane take care of you becaming a death trap in seconds
yeah sounds like it..sorry for your loss. I know as a little kid it was devastating for me simply because I grew up in STL and loved the 747s I got to see daily there. When i heard one of them exploded, I was in disbelief...I couldn't believe my favorite plane type for my favorite airline had exploded...it really was crushing...I was 8 years old at the time.
Thanks for the comment! Only VHS copies were sold, no DVD's were ever put out. At one point I had uploaded all three productions, "Plane Spotters", "The Mighty DC-8" & "The Legendary 707" for people to enjoy. The music tracks that were used in the productions (which were bought, BTW), triggered some kind of thing on TH-cam, basically saying that I didn't have the right to publish the content, so they're down.
I flew to New York on July 20th 1996 from LGW. As I waited at the gate, a TWA 747 pushed back in front of us and I remember looking around at all the nervous faces of my fellow passengers. I also sadly witnessed the funeral procession of flight 800 crew members at St Patrick's cathedral on the first days of my holiday in the Big Apple. RIP TW 800.
The audio is chilling. I believe the last thing the pilot says to the ATC was an acknowledgement of 15,000 feet to Boston center. Then you hear a delta pilot say he saw an explosion that went down to the water. Boston Center tries Twa 800 and there is just dead silence. Delta pilot says “I think that was them.”Boston Center says “I think so,” finally you hear the Delta pilot day “God bless them.”
Yes, in hearing such a scenario, it brings certain feelings to bear. just to let you know: Not delta. It was Eastwinds Flight 507 (Stinger Bee 507 and Captain McClaine) that was the first commercial flight to radio in 'an explosion, that just went down'. There was no *Half of a plane* _Zoom climbing_ as the fake news video claim, as such is physically and aerodynamically impossible. _That_ scenario was _made up_ by the CIA and the NTSB to try and explain away portions of witness sightings.
Virgin flight 009 also saw the explosion, which was at his 9 o'clock position. When flight 800 blew up, the forward fuselage ripped off, with the wings intact, the sudden weight shift to the rear and the engines still at full throttle, the aircraft actually climbed for about 30 seconds after the explosion, explaining the upwards streak towards another explosion, the aircraft was about 10 miles away from the coast, everyone only heard the explosion about 45 seconds after it happened due to how fast sound travels, by the time they looked up the half aircraft had already stalled and fell out of the sky
I Get A Sick Feeling When These Things Happen D: A Plane Crash Is Always SomeThing Hard To Get Over - Especially For Those Who Lose Their Loved Ones...
I have been on this beautiful plane a few times from 78,84,89 from JFK to Frankfurt. Lot of great memories on this plane! One was when my mother got herself in trouble when Captain turned on no smoking signs and my mother just had to have a cigarette so she went into lab / restroom and lit up a cigarette... Not a good idea!! I remember the captain coming over the PA saying "to whomever was smoking in the lab when no smoking signs are on , I'd highly suggest you stop or I will turn this plane around and land and have you removed " I was so embarrassed because everyone knew it was my mother and was staring at us and giving dirty looks. My mother to this day tries to deny she did anything wrong. She has since quit smoking but at that time in her 30's she was a heavy smoker unfortunately.
Unusual to see the nose wheels off the ground for so long prior to unstick. Knew a retired TWA crew member that flew that tail # from all three seats and recalled it as a good old reliable ship that was well liked and just loved to fly.
It is a beautiful thing to see, the 747.... and the aircraft here, which was flight 800, was in top mechanical and material condition. There was nothing 'mechanically' wrong, and especially not that 'some spark' brought down the strongest aircraft ever built! http : // twa800 . com/news/nlj-9-18-06.htm pass it along.
He went right to the end of that runway before lifting off. Also, that plane looked like it had just had a complete overhaul. Everything was shining new looking. A rare site to see any of TWAs planes looking fresh.
My father was in the military and we all, family members took a twa 747 Boeing air craft from jfk airport in new York city to Frankfurt Germany in the Year of 1972. That was the biggest aircraft at this time. I've been on every size air craft from the small 8 passenger to the 747 twa boieng air craft.
@Pvjinflight As another note, it was not just the condition of the wiring alone that caused the explosion. The center wing tank was practically empty, and the air conditioning packs ran an extra two hours on the tarmac due to flight delays. This caused what little fuel there was to be heated to flash point. So a spark in-and-of itself alone wouldn't have caused the explosion had the fuel tank been fully loaded with fuel. This was another practice that was changed universally.
I am unable to quit watching this video. My heart aches for this machine. So many what-ifs...say the plane hadn't been delayed...would the tank have been sufficiently heated for a CWT explosion? I don't care what the speculation about the safety of the plane was that day....the odds of the conditions of Flight 800 exploding were and still are incredibly remote. Were N93119 in flying condition today, I would fly it without hesitation. This was an otherwise reliable and safe plane having a bad day
I got the opportunity to visit the reconstructed wreckage in Ashburn, VA. Just seeing that expresses as many chills as you just explained. God rest their souls in peace.
@@jacob1652 Take a deep breath. I served in the Navy as an 'Aviation Boatswain'. You are getting ahead of your self, and need to read the entire context of my many posts. ...."I" .... never said the 747 was 'Shot down, and then 'by the navy.' "My" facts are straight, but Nobody (most peeps) don't care to know them. I will entertain any honest questions.
@@jacob1652 would have been easy to anchor a boat in the departure path offshore and use a stinger missile - they can certainly reach a plane that's climbing. We'll never know what happend
TWA flight 800 was one of several wake up calls in the 80s and early 90s. At that time is was common to have 25 year old aircraft still in service, it became evident that additional maintenance and inspections where very much needed to ensure safe continued operations of older aircraft.
Was shot down accidently by the Navy missle fired from a destroyer on a training mission. There are radar traces of the ship hightailing it away. Just very recently the Navy disclosed it's inventory back then showed a shortage of a missle from it's total.
@@mikeleventhal2093 it has been proved time and time again it was not shot down by a missile, what the lead ntsb director said was not true, he even confirmed it, but it just stuck on to the theorists, and I don't agree with his comment either, it was Boeings faulty design of the ac unit pack. but obviously since both of you are related to Einstein and are the smartest people on earth at the moment, all those investigations were for nothing, because your stupid theories are the equivalent to dog shit. what a fucking way to disrespect the dead on the fateful sunset. sincerely, go fuck yourself.
@willy550us It probably was loaded down if this was 1991. The most likely route it would have been flying is LAX-LHR. TWA was just beginning to lose their prestige as an international giant because Carl Icahn was busy selling off as many routes as possible, selling planes and leasing them back. But the other possible reason for the long rotation was that the pilot just wanted to use the whole runway to get off the ground.
That paint scheme had been applied to the aircraft roughly 15 years prior to the time of this video, so of course it would seem natural for it to be derelict. As far as the aircraft being completely worn out, many airplanes of a similar age were flying. The accident wasn't so much age-related as it was maintenance and design related...all 747s had this problem. N93119 was the unfortunate example that had to expose it.
The TWA 747-100s were powered by the Pratt and Whitney JT9D-7AH, with 46,250 lbs of thrust each, and the TWA 747-200s were powered by the Pratt and Whitney JT9D-7J, with 50,000 lbs of thrust each!
Wow I cant belive thats a real video of twa 800 before it crashed great video I live 2 minutes away from smith point beach where my uncles freind witnessed the crash great video:D
What did your uncle's friend see? The CIA, FBI, and NTSB interviews have been released, and you might consider asking your uncle to make a FOIA and Privacy Act request to review the report for accuracy.
Captain must have known he was being filmed....thats why he pull a wheelie before rotatation!! show off!! miss this era of aviation! TWA was a beautiful livery!!
@@mikeleventhal2093 it has been proved time and time again it was not shot down by a missile, what the lead ntsb director said was not true, he even confirmed it, but it just stuck on to the theorists, and I don't agree with both of your comments, it was Boeings faulty design of the ac unit pack. but obviously since both of you are related to Einstein and are the smartest people on earth at the moment, all those investigations were for nothing, because your stupid theories are the equivalent to dog shit. what a fucking way to disrespect the dead on the fateful sunset. sincerely, go fuck yourself.
@seanvilla710, my friend Craig (who shot this) has zoomed into many registrations as they taxi by. It's certainly not seen in every video but in a fair number of them. I can assure you this is real, I transferred it myself from the original VHS tape that was just sitting there collecting dust. This is the aircraft in question, feel free to google N93119.
the incredible thing about the 747 are its versions that evolved ,the 747-400 have a much shorter distance being airborne thanks to the more powerful engines
@dutchy1176 The -131 was specific to the model ordered by TWA, so yes, you could say each one had unique specifications for that airline. For Boeing, -23 model symbolizes AA, -22 symbolizes UA, -24, etc...each number is assigned to an aircraft depending on the airline that ordered it. -31 was TWA's symbol, -21 was Pan Am's symbol, -32 was DL's symbol...I could go on and on. The last two numbers for any model tell you which airline was the original customer for that plane.
@bearpaw72 No. All standard upper decks had nine windows, but many airlines opted to plug up six of them so it appeared the upper decks had only 3. When Flight 800 crashed, the nose hit the water with such force that the plugs were knocked out, exposing the covered up windows.
Navid Namini asked about the upper deck windows. The 747-100 and -200 have the same number of windows, but the -100 has all but three plugged. Most of these plugs blew out in the explosion and subsequent impact. You can see in pictures of the left side that a few are still in place. As for anti-glare paint on the nose, I can't find any evidence that the TWA 800 aircraft had it. Not sure where he got that idea from.
@dutchy1176 There have been plenty of instances where Jet-A vapors caused a fuel tank to explode and destroy the aircraft...it happened to a 737 in the Phillipines, several 707s, and N93119's sistership, N53111, in 1976 after TWA sold it to the Iranian Air Force.
@Q53bus N93119 was twa last built 747/131(was suppose to go to eastern) , at around the time boeing was putting 10 windows on all 747s (from line 88 onwards) most airlines like ba/nw starting adding windows to there 3 window 747s but twa covered theres up so all there 747/131 would look the same with only 3 windows that makes 5 twa 747/131 with covered up windows N93118 line number 151 which is still flying with the iran airforce today still only has its 6 windows showing
The 747-100 is a fascinating aircraft. State of the art in the late 60s and 70s, I had the impression of flying coffins in the late 90s (maybe because of Pan Am and TWA). They bought them onces and never interested. The planes seemed to be worn out. Today a 25 year old 777 feels much more modern than a 25 year old 747-100 in these times.
That's also because today's 25 year old 777 will have a cabin & IFE that's only 10 years old at most. Whereas back then seats and entertainment hadn't changed all that much in those 25 years. Less width & pitch in economy, sure, and some planes had small personal screens in business and/or first, but not much more of a difference than that. What dates today's planes are the no smoking lights, replaced only relatively recently by no electronic gadgets lights.
Yes you do. I had a pleasent chat with you on PAA 747s once. You do care. That's why I don't get all the threats, namecalling and swearing. To some extent, you admire the pilots, and other airline staff that look at this stuff. They read all that agressive crap too.
I remember seeing those great big red tails at Terminal 3 at LAX. Great memory. I really liked TWA's 'candy cane' livery....but not as much as their iconic 'double globe' livery! Ryan, I have a couple of Aviation Media VHS videos ('Plane Spotters' and 'The Legendary 707'). Are these available on DVD? I've almost worn them out!
freaky to see the actual plane in normal condition, knowing it doesnt exist anymore and literally exploded. It was even ragged back then, paint falling off. TWA didnt take care of their planes and sadly it caught up to this bird.
everything you just said is really ignorant. btw, the plane did not explode as suggested. That is impossible. The only thing that "caught up" to the 747, was a missile.
@@robshef718 it has been proved time and time again it was not shot down by a missile, what the lead ntsb director said was not true, he even confirmed it, but it just stuck on to the theorists, and I don't agree with his comment either, it was Boeings faulty design of the ac unit pack. but obviously since both of you are related to Einstein and are the smartest people on earth at the moment, all those investigations were for nothing, because your stupid theories are the equivalent to dog shit. what a fucking way to disrespect the dead on the fateful sunset. sincerely, go fuck yourself.
You and I both know that from the 230 people on board, a great number, if not most of them, were very aware of the events unfolding. They watched the flames swallow up everything in front of them, before they themselves were burned alive as they decended towards the sea. How is that the way to go??
Imagine being on that very plane on the day of the accident …but on the flight BEFORE. I would love to hear stories of the people and their reactions. Once they heard the plane they just got off of …exploded a couple hours later.
I remember reading on a forum, the OP flew on the aircraft's penultimate flight, if I recall from Athens to JFK. A few hours later she left for Paris and never returned. Now that is eerie.
I do believe that penultimate Athens - JFK flight may well have passed over my grandparent's house in southern Italy where I would spend every summer. I was 7 years old and we were having the whole house rebuilt at the time. I have no recollection of the news mentioning the crash and only found out about it a few years later when mention of "high voltage cables crossed with low voltage cables" on TV piqued my interest - especially as at the time the big news was another crash that had just happened.
@@tiadaidthat very flight is one of the reasons why, beyond other factors, I have a hard time believing the official outcome of the investigation of the crash. From Athens to New York is a ten hour flight in minus 50-70 degrees Celsius temperatures. Yet, during a mere 4 hour stop at JFK, we're supposed to believe that the centre wing tank got as hot and volatile as the report says. My belief is that this 93.000 hour Queen of the skies was fit to fly, but that external forces from at least one missile (navy or terrorist) caused her demise. She took off in place of an EL AL 747. Could of been mistaken identity. But there was also a navy training exercise taking place right below her flightpath.
In answer to both questions: 1) Because it has been my experience that people who believe certain things fall into a category where they "follow the crowd" and question everything. TWA 800 bomb, Bush created 9/11, The Bilderbergers, etc. And 2) To believe anything other than the NTSB report (which was completed in painstaking detail), is (in my opinion) kooky. This thing has been addressed so many times now that I can't believe people believe anything BUT what's in that report.
Smitty, I have a couple of questions for you then. One, WHY were FBI agents crawling all over Long Island confiscating photos people had taken of the steak of light that impacted Flight 800? Why would they CONFISCATE evidence of a crime like that? Why would they hide evidence? Seems fishy to me. Also, what about the military helo pilots flying nearby that night? There was a National Guard helo in the area that night, and the pilots said that they'd seen a missile. Who would better know what a missile in flight looks like than a military pilot, either fixed or rotary wing? As for me, I don't know what happened to TWA 800. Was it a bomb? Was it a missile? Was it a terrorist act? Was it a Navy ship accidentally firing on a civil airliner? Google Iran Air 655. It was accidentally shot down by two missiles from the USS Vincennes (CG-49) on 3 July 1988. If that had happened once, why couldn't it have happened again, particularly since the US Navy was in the area on 17 July 1996? I've seen compelling theories for both the bomb and missile. That said, I know this: the "official" version (i.e. the center tank) is TOTAL BULLSHIT! It makes about as much sense as WTC 1, 2, and 7 falling in their own footprints-even though only two of them (WTC 1&2) were even hit by an airplane; WTC 7 wasn't hit by anything, yet it fell in to its own footprint at near freefall speed.. The center tank theory of TWA 800's demise makes about as much sense as the official version of 9/11 does...
@@markymarknj the twins falling on their own footprints was because of their hollow tube structure. It was like a paper straw (the outside steel vertical columns) full of wadding (the horizontal floors connecting these outside columns to the vertical core columns); both elements relied on the other to stay upright. When the crippled floors ultimately gave way (their light truss horizontal structures weakened by both the shockwave of impact - which was absolutely brutal - and the hour+ of fire) they fell down, dislodging each floor below in turn as each fell on the next, pancaking down through the tube like when you blow the wadding out the paper straw. And just like the straw which now has no support & crumples, the core & perimeter columns now have no support and collapse in on themselves.
@@visionist7 but the trussed floor weren't designed or built to connect the exterior walls of WTC 1&2 to the inner column; that's number one. Number two, the exterior walls were designed and built to carry the vertical loads of the buildings and provide their strength. Number three, WTC 1&2 were designed with aircraft impacts in mind. Remember that the Empire State Building was hit by an airplane. Also remember that you have the three NYC area airports all nearby; I'm talking about LGA, JFK, and EWR. EWR could be seen from the Twin Towers. Finally, you TOTALLY IGNORED WTC7! How did it come down when it wasn't hit by an aircraft? Why did WTC7 fall at freefall speed? Rather than take my word for it, take a gander at this Modern Marvels documentary about the WTC: th-cam.com/video/aiyDLdUWlDM/w-d-xo.html I'd like you to start paying attention at 30:43, where they start talking about the then radical construction techniques used to build the Twin Towers. At 31:09, Professor Gillespie starts discussing how skyscrapers are typically built. At 31:43, the professor goes on to discuss the exterior skeleton system. At 32:36, Professor Gillespie then compares the Twin Towers' construction method to a celery stick in terms of how it works. Then, at 32:52, is the coup de grace: WTC structural engineer, Frank DeMartini, discussing how the Twin Towers were not only built to sustain an impact from an aircraft, but could sustain multiple hits. DeMartini likened the structure of WTC 1&2 to that of a mosquito netting, and how it could sustain MULTIPLE IMPACTS from aircraft-small note! I won't say for sure what brought down WTC 1, 2, and 7, I will say this: it DID NOT happen like the US Government said...
@@markymarknj I don't know about building 7 but it was allowed to burn completely out of control for hours and no attempt of any kind was made to fight the fire. The structure of the twins was completely interdependent. The core vertical columns were connected horizontally by beams on the outside of the core which could be stripped clean away by the collapsing floors, leaving the core columns standing like glorified toothpicks before they collapsed. There are several videos showing the core just visible through the concrete floor dust before it gives in too. The perimeter columns on the other hand were connected vertically to each other by nothing more than four stout bolts at the higher levels. The bolt holes are easily visible in the wreckage. This was the Port Authority being cheap - just like they skipped any fire suppression system at first being under no authority to install one except their own. The claims of being built to withstand aircraft impacts were marketing whoreshit, backed up by absolutely nothing. In any case a narrowbody 707 (the state of the art in the mid 60s) coming in to land without a load of fuel and hitting a tower, flaps down, at approach speed is not a widebody 767 doing 500+ MPH loaded down with 10000 US gallons of volatile jet A. The plane that hit the ESB was a small piston engined bomber weighing about a tenth of a 767. Obviously. If any conspiracy exists, it's the usual one: corruption and profiteering during the twin's construction, in the name of the mob and their construction unions, who also ensured the new building wouldn't be completed without spending billions of dollars on "security" features.
@@visionist7 you ever hear of the Windsor Tower in Madrid? It was a skyscraper that burned for over 24 hours, yet it DID NOT COLLAPSE! I don't claim to know exactly what happened on 9/11, but I know that the "official version" isn't the truth. Here's something else to consider: WHY was all the debris from 9/11 so hurriedly carted off, hmmm? Why was it never examined after such a horrific crime? Oh, and here's something else: the 767 was NOT doing 500 mph! It's not able to do so that low to the ground, thanks to the thick, dense air. That's what 767 instructor pilots have said; the aircraft simply cannot travel that fast so close to the ground. Now, what's to say that the Twin Towers weren't designed for a higher speed impact? You know that, in addition to landing at the nearby airports (LGA, JFK, and EWR), that aircraft also takeoff from all three, right? If they're taking off, wouldn't they be full of fuel, as they were at the beginning of their flights? Also, wouldn't they be traveling well above landing speed, as they were climbing to their enroute altitudes? Granted, they wouldn't be at full speed; no aircraft is in a climb. That said, they'd be traveling well above landing speed. With that in mind, wouldn't the Twin Towers need to be designed and built for a higher speed impact? Finally, here's something else to consider: soon after 9/11, I did rough calculations of the kinetic energy that both the 707 and 767 would deliver. Do you know what? They were ABOUT THE SAME! Why is that? Though the 707 is smaller and lighter than the 767, it has a faster top speed; since ke=1/2*m*v^2, even a minor change in velocity will lead to a major change in kinetic energy. This explains why a motorcycle traveling at high speed can total a car during a collision. This is also why a baseball player is taught to snap his wrists while swinging the bat; this is why golfers are taught to do the same during their swings. It's to increase rotational velocity, which in turn increased tangential velocity; this increased tangential velocity imparts maximum kinetic energy to the ball, thus driving it farther. Anyway, even though the 707 is a smaller, lighter aircraft, it is faster; because it is faster, it would be capable of imparting approximately the same kinetic energy as a 767 would upon impact. Finally, there's also the fact that Minoru Yamasaki and the structural engineers working with him designed the Twin Towers to sustain impact from aircraft. Frank DeMartini, the structural engineer overseeing the towers, said the same; he said that the external skeleton structure would have no problem sustaining multiple impacts from aircraft, that it would be akin to a pencil penetrating a screen. I don't know about you, but I'd be inclined to take the words of the above gentlemen over that of a lying, corrupt gov't official!
@Pvjinflight Maybe so, but it was far from the only 747 that had that problem. And that had more to do with the method of maintenance, not the age of the plane. This was not a maintenance practice that was banned either. In any case, the wiring in this condition after Flight 800 was promptly removed from all other 747s that had it. And besides, United and Northwest operated 747 classics just as old as this plane until the end of the 1990s. Northwest flew their first 747 for almost 30 years.
jetfreak4 Go play with yourself you fucking troll. Why you're still not blocked from any of these video's is a big mystery to me. There is absolutely no reason for you to respond to my comments the way you do, because they are not directed at you to begin with. I thought I'd help the guy out with his question, as I was watching this video anyway. if you're so fucking smart, then why don't you answer any of these questions, and keep it civilized for a change....oh, wait. You CAN'T keep it civilized...that's right I forgot.
dutchy1176 You're a little punk,. If you knew me you would think twice before running your mouth. And I'm glad I hit a nerve. I'm tired of your annoying persistence into the idea that TWA Flight 800 was downed by a missile. There is no evidence of a missile except eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable. Conspiracists like you are sad pieces of work that need to be locked up, medicated, and brainwashed of the ridiculous thoughts you have.
jetfreak4 Well, I guess if I can´t answer anybody else´s questions anymore without you interfering the way you do, then you´re the one with the problem. I was more than willing to leave it where it was at months ago, but it´s your persistence that´s getting the better of everything, not mine. I don´t understand why it´s such a problem to not believe in the final report of this disaster, when nobody who wrote it actually knows for sure what triggered the explosion. I´m no 9-11 truther, nor much of a believer in other events that have been made into speculation of conspiracy. Just flt 800.And just who are you anyway? IMO just another person with plenty of guts from behind a computer, but not so much otherwise. I don't want to fight with anybody, not on here, not anywhere. Leave me the fuck alone.
Buddy, if you said the kind of shit to me you've been saying in person, you'd seriously be fucked up. I am a competitive lifter who knows how to box.I am not at all afraid to talk to you like this offline because you would be on the ground before you knew what hit you. You think you're right in doubting the report...all you have is an opinion. And then there are some who go out and say it was a missile when there is no evidence to support it. Unlike the fuel quantity indication short, which has plenty of circumstantial evidence supporting its failure. I will leave you the fuck alone, because you're a waste of time. You wanna fight, I'll give you my address. Let's see how much of a man you really are.
The FQIS wiring short-circuiting is really the only way that the center fuel tank could have exploded once you eliminate all other possible causes...they couldn't determine the source of the voltage because the wires were basically charred and useless from hitting the water at over 500 mph. The CVR skipping over several times prior to the explosion, combined with the data from the fuel quantity indication system, and the conversation about engine number 4, all makes other scenarios unlikely.
So number 4 was the engine that severed its own reverser cable on landing from Athens? Did the reverser stay open and they taxied to the gate (they arrived early I believe - did they have to wait for a gate?) with the reverser open? I know they also didn't start one of the engines immediately on pushback after and waited till they almost reached the runway (22R I believe). Was this also engine 4 I wonder. I presume the delay on the ground was to fix the reverser. There's a discrepancy on how long they were on the ground too. I've read it was as long as 5 hours (arrived 30 minutes early, 2 hour layover and over 2 hours to fix the reverser). That's a very long time to sit under the sun with the AC packs running. I bet the vents inside were gushing cold mist during boarding. Every time I see that today it reminds me of TWA 800 & quietly freaks me out a bit
wow..so you actually flew it...what kind of condition was she in? Also...a little curious...did she operate Flight 800 the day before? There is a photo dated July 16, 1996 that shows N93119 on approach to CDG from JFK, but I have no way of verifying her flight logs.
I flew that one from STL-HNL and back in April of 1992. I know because the picture of the plane home from Hawaii was the last photo we took. It captured the number clearly in the front. N93119. A week after TWA 800 crashed, I dug up the picture to check the number...you talk about chills. God rest their souls.
Frank Patraziebe Wow, that must have been strangely eerie when you saw the N93119 registration in the picture.
Twa 800 rip💀 new york the paris🗽🗼✈ twa 800 muerte 💀 nueva york a paris🗽🗼✈
I sat on the bench that the 1996 Olympic bomber put his bomb under just 6hrs before he did it, have a picture its that same eerie weird feeling you get im sure. When you are in an exact spot that something horrible happens to in the future its a strange feeling.
@@Halfmoonbaystudios a missile hit it and it was well maintained they make no mistakes inspecting it
@@yb6. It wasn’t a missile, it was an explosion caused by a malfunctioning air conditioning unit during a delay on the ground at JFK. The packs had been running for multiple hours during the delay which heated the fuel in the center fuel tank, turning it into vapor. There was then a short circuit which caused sparks to fall into the center fuel tank, igniting the vapor, causing an explosion that ultimately ripped the plane apart.
Hard to believe that this exact same plane would later be involved in one of the most horrific aviation disasters in history.
Rest in peace to those on board TWA 800.
wow....amazing to see the plane before the tragic accident...My heart goes out to the families of all who died on TWA800.
ตวยรีะ้ดฟฤ
@@praditpongtham3683 9u0h5ertwihtyj89uiogftsejrty98ugipfgvht9esrifju8yiedhf
@@praditpongtham3683 d017kap?01b0@!20b9@!∆£[b9nalavniggajapwba
@@praditpongtham3683 dhxhnscjshsvshshshsgshshdhdhdgdvh hhcbc9dbjdidjeidudeuurrurur
@@praditpongtham3683 sjdcbsjhdvnsjsvhshajzvdjksj
Creepy and sad. But what a beautiful plane those early model 747's were.
All 747 variants look gorgeous, even the 747SP.
definitely
cargo 747s: EATS CARGO HAHAHA stops
@@aviationlba747 yeah but i find the 747 8i kinda ugly the hump is to long
@@notobamabossagming4890 Really? I think it’s possibly the most elegant airliner ever built, other than Concorde of course.
That was one hell of a wheelie during the take off!
foxtrot789 hell yea! He knew what he was doin lol 😂
It was quite impressive.
you rotate on a 747 about 2-3 degrees a second to make it lift-off at about 10° to prevent tail strike
They don't pop off the ground like the Cessnas. I remember transitioning to larger aircraft and setting the pitch after rotation and letting the aircraft fly off the ground when she was ready. He looked pretty heavy. Love the old JT-9D. Loud for a high bypass. For late 60's/early 70's technology, very low smoke. Great video. I'll never believe that CIA film...ever.
Must be ex air force pilot @@ffllcchh
God Bless N93119 and my f/a brothers and sisters on 800....it was a bad day for all of us at TWA....I worked this 74 in 84 a year before I retired....it was the last 74 I would work....a great loss....prayers and thoughts to the passengers families and thoughts and prayers to the crew and f/a's...
Im a late night freight driver on a 74-8, one of the guys I fly w/ was a former flight engineer for TWA on the 74's and knew the crew very well. The aviation community driving the queen of the skies is a small community (for those of us that are left) and our numbers keep shrinking
74 ? Or 747
V1. Rotate. Wait for it. Waaait for it. Liftoff!
mjl1966y har har har
History’s longest 747 rotation? RIP TWA 800.
Remember flight TWA 800 and 230 passengers
212 passengers. 18 crew.
um thats literally what this video is about
@@calpeninsularailfan I think he's just trying to be nice about the people who died in the crash?
Wow. Thanks for posting this. Today is the 16 year Anniversary and I remember it like it was yesterday. Never Forget, RIP TWA 800
When everyone heard about TWA's explosion for the first time, it shattered everyone's hearts forever and to this day, it remains and haunts us every now and then! R.I.P to the souls onboard.
It was shot down actually
@@TMBpk It was never fully proven what really happened to TWA 800
@@TMBpk The official version tells otherwise and there is no hard evidence for the rocket theory. It's not like 9/11 where simple physics help you to understand that the story is wrong.
@@friendlyreptile9931 I was not on the team at Calverton. I was in contact with members of the IAM and TWA engineer teams. Some very strange things happened there. Items identified and put in place were gone the next morning. One of the engineers had a discussion with an FBI man about high pressure cutting. After some resistance the FBI man took him to a locked sample room and showed him samples of bomb damage. Yes the FBI had a locked room there. One of the IAM team identified a part. He was taking it to place in position, an FBI agent took it at GUN point. They never recovered any material from a three foot square area where the crack started. The center tank forward bulkhead was bent down. The water tank on the bulkhead was intack. The tank was not smashed on the cargo floor. The nose section was already gone!. I am familiar with the USAF center tank explosion. It was caused by a fault with the MD1 fuel quantity tester. No one I know on the team thinks the explanation is correct. They just cannot find an answer either. I could go on.
This gave a chill down my spine. Flew JFK - LHR on this bird about a fortnight before this happened. And i wasn't even booked on TWA. I should have flown back with KU that day, but i got bounced (along with 8 other passengers) onto the TWA flight. I remember looking in my JP at the time, and thinking that this aircraft was an NTU for the Iranian Air Force ! Fantastic flight and a surpisingly clean aircraft inside and the crew were fantastic. I got pics of the cabin as we were boarding. RIP to all the lives lost that day in that catastrophic accident. So sad.
Wow that’s so cool but creepy you got to go inside the same plane of the accident! I’ve been searching for photos of the interior of that plane would love if u still have them for me to see. Thanks :)
She was built for Eastern Airlines, but they cancelled their 747 orders, so she was configured to TWA's "- 131" spec, and delivered to them. They even "plugged" all but three upper deck windows on each side, so she had the appearance of the older 100 series 747s in their fleet. Interesting that the Iran Air Force didn't take her up either. I always wondered why TWA had a few 747s leased/sold to them at the time. Bad economy, or the oil crisis perhaps?
@@dutchy1176 I didn't know she was part of that cancelled order. Cheers.
@@everettvincent1688 Hi. They are amongst a large batch of photograph's that i still need to get scanned and transferred onto a disc. All interior shots of the 70's 80's & 90's. It'll give me something to do over christmas i think.
So wait, you ended up getting pictures of the interior of the craft more or less than a month before it fell out of the sky? That seems really eerie but also quite fascinating at the same time. Have you since scanned these images?
My first plane ride ever was on a TWA 747 in March or April of 1970. They were pretty new then, and TWA was the first operator to place them in domestic service. I remember the pilot telling us and approach to JFK that we had nearly enough fuel to fly all the way back to Los Angeles! I was the subject of much envy by my high school classmates upon my return.
My first flight ever was on a TWA 747 from JFK to LAX back in June of 1975..I was 14 then..a graduation gift from Mom before high school to visit family out west. Loved that plane..great flight,great meals..those were the days,when flying was a royal experience and people were civilized.. ✈ 👍🤔
@@valentinooliveri3012 Those days are long gone. Replaced by sardine can tight planes; and unruly passengers.
@@valentinooliveri3012 for about 8 months TWA offered two private rooms in the hump (the "Captain's Deck" they called it) which must have felt like flying as royalty almost. It didn't last long though
TWA and Pan Am had the best liveries imo.
Agreed.
Just before she spent 25 years in retirement as a display ornament. She'd be a 50 year old 747 today (possibly scrapped or used in aerial fire fighting). God speed ol girl.
Yeah but do you know what happened on July 17th 1996. If you don't, n93119, operating as flight 800, took of at 8:19pm, nearly an hour behind schedule, at 8:32pm, the aircraft disappeared off the radar and an Eastwind flight reported an explosion at 13000 feet, a short circuit in the center wing tank ignited fuel vapors and blew the 747 out of the sky, killing 230 people
@@hunterneitzel3012yes but it was placed in storage for a long time before the accident happened. The plane was basically new.
This story always intrigued me. RIP to those people..
Thank you so much for this video dude. It's one thing to be able to see photos of the plane that crashed as Flight 800, but to actually be able to hear it breathing is just....amazing and creepy. What year was this shot taken? It looks like sometime in the 1990s as the black antiflash panel under the cockpit isn't there. As a life-long resident of STL, I miss seeing and hearing the TWA jumbos. Flight 800 was a tragedy that struck me to the core...I was in disbelief when it happened.
im pretty sure this was shot in 1993 or a couple of months before the accident.
Black spot wasn’t there in the crash either, also I think it was ‘92
Wow. My parents were good friends with the flight engineer on that fatal flight, Ollie Krick. My dad told me a story about a week prior to the accident, he had pulled up in front of my parent’s house with a brand new car.
Sad to think that I’ve seen pictures of this same plane before - in pieces on the back of a semi trailer, mounted to a giant frame...
Very heartbreaking, R.I.P TWA 800.
As do I. I remember where I was, what I was doing, what the weather was like, etc. As a 9 year old that loved TWA and their 747s, this incident was extremely traumatic for me and would prompt me to become an aviation fanatic.
Same here, I’m a HUUUUGGGGGEEE fan of twa and would do anything to bring them back, and I’m also an aviation geek
It very surreal looking at this plane at this place and time, knowing that in 5yrs time this flight will meet a horrific demise. Thank you very showing
I worked on these early 747’s. Including replacing the old wiring and fuel quantity sending units in the fuel tanks. In overhaul we entered these 747 fuel tanks for repairs. The center tank is huge. I also worked on 747 cargo doors after the cargo door flew off the airplane in Hawaii.
Ummm, No you didn't, there Junkyard. The Series 100 classic 747's all had a service life and none of the FQIS units or wiring, were ever in need of nor were ever replaced. They were all OEM. That is listed in the TWA maintenance logs for N93119. As well, the investigators having retrieved the FQIS units in the wreckage checked all of the units, for integrity and there were no issues with any of the units. The 'cargo door' issue was due to a ground crew incompetency issue of failing to properly and, assure the security of the cargo door.
the wires were in very bad shape their plastic dried and cracked the tragedy could had happened at any moment the plane was used too much on plenty of flights with several stops and TWA planes in the 90s had minimal care and repairs , if you don't take care properly of a plane the plane take care of you becaming a death trap in seconds
Missile brought her down. That CIA psy-op was right up there with Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi's "These are not the droids you're looking for."
@@georgemallory797proof?
@@georgemallory797you probably lying about that
What a beauty 747...!
The strongest most capable wide body Heavy aircraft ever built!
Dam I miss TWA ....
You got that right. The airline was my home away from home.
eyestoenvy I'm a TWA brat. My dad flew for them. Retired in '95.
I liked the TWA coffee, and the TWA juice was ok...but the TWA.T was the best!
yeah sounds like it..sorry for your loss. I know as a little kid it was devastating for me simply because I grew up in STL and loved the 747s I got to see daily there. When i heard one of them exploded, I was in disbelief...I couldn't believe my favorite plane type for my favorite airline had exploded...it really was crushing...I was 8 years old at the time.
Thanks for the comment! Only VHS copies were sold, no DVD's were ever put out. At one point I had uploaded all three productions, "Plane Spotters", "The Mighty DC-8" & "The Legendary 707" for people to enjoy. The music tracks that were used in the productions (which were bought, BTW), triggered some kind of thing on TH-cam, basically saying that I didn't have the right to publish the content, so they're down.
I flew to New York on July 20th 1996 from LGW. As I waited at the gate, a TWA 747 pushed back in front of us and I remember looking around at all the nervous faces of my fellow passengers. I also sadly witnessed the funeral procession of flight 800 crew members at St Patrick's cathedral on the first days of my holiday in the Big Apple. RIP TW 800.
You might have been one the last people to see her on the ground. And not in millions of tiny fire ravaged pieces.
@@tommcglone2867
Well I was among the few that flew on the airplane when it was in 1 piece, and it's a very eriee feeling.
@@tommcglone2867 that's impossible because TWA 800 happened 3 days earlier on July 17, 1996 by the date mentioned N93119 was destroyed
@@vsocarras27 oh. Might have had a few beers when i commented that
They knew it happened a few days earlier. Flight 800 traumatized so many flying on the JFK- CDG route
The audio is chilling. I believe the last thing the pilot says to the ATC was an acknowledgement of 15,000 feet to Boston center. Then you hear a delta pilot say he saw an explosion that went down to the water. Boston Center tries Twa 800 and there is just dead silence. Delta pilot says “I think that was them.”Boston Center says “I think so,” finally you hear the Delta pilot day “God bless them.”
Yes, in hearing such a scenario, it brings certain feelings to bear.
just to let you know: Not delta. It was Eastwinds Flight 507 (Stinger Bee 507 and Captain McClaine) that was the first commercial flight to radio in 'an explosion, that just went down'.
There was no *Half of a plane* _Zoom climbing_ as the fake news video claim, as such is physically and aerodynamically impossible. _That_ scenario was _made up_ by the CIA and the NTSB to try and explain away portions of witness sightings.
Virgin flight 009 also saw the explosion, which was at his 9 o'clock position. When flight 800 blew up, the forward fuselage ripped off, with the wings intact, the sudden weight shift to the rear and the engines still at full throttle, the aircraft actually climbed for about 30 seconds after the explosion, explaining the upwards streak towards another explosion, the aircraft was about 10 miles away from the coast, everyone only heard the explosion about 45 seconds after it happened due to how fast sound travels, by the time they looked up the half aircraft had already stalled and fell out of the sky
@@hunterneitzel3012 Fascinating. Thank you for your comment.
I Get A Sick Feeling When These Things Happen D:
A Plane Crash Is Always SomeThing Hard To Get Over - Especially For Those Who Lose Their Loved Ones...
I have been on this beautiful plane a few times from 78,84,89 from JFK to Frankfurt. Lot of great memories on this plane! One was when my mother got herself in trouble when Captain turned on no smoking signs and my mother just had to have a cigarette so she went into lab / restroom and lit up a cigarette... Not a good idea!! I remember the captain coming over the PA saying "to whomever was smoking in the lab when no smoking signs are on , I'd highly suggest you stop or I will turn this plane around and land and have you removed " I was so embarrassed because everyone knew it was my mother and was staring at us and giving dirty looks. My mother to this day tries to deny she did anything wrong. She has since quit smoking but at that time in her 30's she was a heavy smoker unfortunately.
That's her story & she's sticking to it!
Unusual to see the nose wheels off the ground for so long prior to unstick. Knew a retired TWA crew member that flew that tail # from all three seats and recalled it as a good old reliable ship that was well liked and just loved to fly.
It is a beautiful thing to see, the 747.... and the aircraft here, which was flight 800, was in top mechanical and material condition. There was nothing 'mechanically' wrong, and especially not that 'some spark' brought down the strongest aircraft ever built! http : // twa800 . com/news/nlj-9-18-06.htm pass it along.
That's a rotation technique some pilots use. At the call "rotate" you ease her up 10 degrees and let her fly off. No one feels the lift off.
My father flew 119 JFK-SFO JFK-LAX many times in the early 70's when it was brand new
🐩
ช
I read she had one of the cleanest logbooks in the fleet. A solid, reliable aircraft right up to her demise...
He went right to the end of that runway before lifting off. Also, that plane looked like it had just had a complete overhaul. Everything was shining new looking. A rare site to see any of TWAs planes looking fresh.
It just gives me the chills that someone took a video of the plane that would crash couple of years later
Beautiful, big bird.
My father was in the military and we all, family members took a twa 747 Boeing air craft from jfk airport in new York city to Frankfurt Germany in the Year of 1972.
That was the biggest aircraft at this time.
I've been on every size air craft from the small 8 passenger to the 747 twa boieng air craft.
R.I.P everyone on that flight.
May your souls rest in peace.
♥Remembering TW800/TWA800 in 1996♥
This looks very nice, the 747 was such a beautiful plane.....
My heart goes to the 230 people who died on Trans World Airlines flight 800
@Pvjinflight As another note, it was not just the condition of the wiring alone that caused the explosion. The center wing tank was practically empty, and the air conditioning packs ran an extra two hours on the tarmac due to flight delays. This caused what little fuel there was to be heated to flash point. So a spark in-and-of itself alone wouldn't have caused the explosion had the fuel tank been fully loaded with fuel. This was another practice that was changed universally.
A graceful and beautiful plane. So sad what happened.
It was a pleasure flying on her, but she was old, and it showed.
I am unable to quit watching this video. My heart aches for this machine. So many what-ifs...say the plane hadn't been delayed...would the tank have been sufficiently heated for a CWT explosion? I don't care what the speculation about the safety of the plane was that day....the odds of the conditions of Flight 800 exploding were and still are incredibly remote. Were N93119 in flying condition today, I would fly it without hesitation. This was an otherwise reliable and safe plane having a bad day
I got the opportunity to visit the reconstructed wreckage in Ashburn, VA. Just seeing that expresses as many chills as you just explained. God rest their souls in peace.
Naval live fire practice using drones and target missiles, lawsuit pending, recent FOIA data releases have blown the wraps off the coverup!
Such a beautiful queen of heaven has fallen RIP TWA 800
Such an amazing sound
Interesting early nose up attitude during take-off,giving nice long lift-off ground roll, beautiful !!!
It’s just chilling to see the bird up and close, you’d never have suspected that it would lead to a terrifying atrocity
Yes, that the plane was brought down by a missile. In BING: type in (case sensitive) TWA 800/ NLJ it will be the first article. pass it along.
@@robshef718 no it wasn't! Get your facts straight. My parents were in the military at that time and it was not shot down by a missile
@@jacob1652 Take a deep breath. I served in the Navy as an 'Aviation Boatswain'. You are getting ahead of your self, and need to read the entire context of my many posts. ...."I" .... never said the 747 was 'Shot down, and then 'by the navy.' "My" facts are straight, but Nobody (most peeps) don't care to know them. I will entertain any honest questions.
@@jacob1652 would have been easy to anchor a boat in the departure path offshore and use a stinger missile - they can certainly reach a plane that's climbing.
We'll never know what happend
Wow it’s crazy to see a beautiful 747-100 before a horrifiying crash that killed 230 people. RIP TWA 800 😢
TWA flight 800 was one of several wake up calls in the 80s and early 90s. At that time is was common to have 25 year old aircraft still in service, it became evident that additional maintenance and inspections where very much needed to ensure safe continued operations of older aircraft.
Was shot down accidently by the Navy missle fired from a destroyer on a training mission. There are radar traces of the ship hightailing it away. Just very recently the Navy disclosed it's inventory back then showed a shortage of a missle from it's total.
@@mikeleventhal2093 it has been proved time and time again it was not shot down by a missile, what the lead ntsb director said was not true, he even confirmed it, but it just stuck on to the theorists, and I don't agree with his comment either, it was Boeings faulty design of the ac unit pack. but obviously since both of you are related to Einstein and are the smartest people on earth at the moment, all those investigations were for nothing, because your stupid theories are the equivalent to dog shit. what a fucking way to disrespect the dead on the fateful sunset. sincerely, go fuck yourself.
@@mikeleventhal2093proof? You probably lying about that
@@railfandepotproductions Read James Sanders book: The Downing of TWA 800. Says it all.
Then take a train ride with the switch in the wrong direction !!!!!!
@MrFlightfan, taped in 1991. Aircraft built in 1971. Exploded in 1996.
@willy550us It probably was loaded down if this was 1991. The most likely route it would have been flying is LAX-LHR. TWA was just beginning to lose their prestige as an international giant because Carl Icahn was busy selling off as many routes as possible, selling planes and leasing them back. But the other possible reason for the long rotation was that the pilot just wanted to use the whole runway to get off the ground.
That paint scheme had been applied to the aircraft roughly 15 years prior to the time of this video, so of course it would seem natural for it to be derelict. As far as the aircraft being completely worn out, many airplanes of a similar age were flying. The accident wasn't so much age-related as it was maintenance and design related...all 747s had this problem. N93119 was the unfortunate example that had to expose it.
Kind of hard to believe that that Exacted plane crashed the one that would later be twa 800
Even harder for me to believe that I was on that airplane just a few months before.
What a beautiful bird!
Thank you for posting. She sure was a pretty old gal...
gotta love the JT-9D's
0:34 - 0:52 - no other jet engine growls this way.
The TWA 747-100s were powered by the Pratt and Whitney JT9D-7AH, with 46,250 lbs of thrust each, and the TWA 747-200s were powered by the Pratt and Whitney JT9D-7J, with 50,000 lbs of thrust each!
@@SparkplugsK-bn9ou TWA had 200s?
I agree 100% although I also love the TF39 used to fly over my house everyday on the galaxies sadly those have been replaced by the cf6-80
Beautiful pratt and whittneys-ive been on a 747-200 once as it was an event and those jt9ds ROAAARRRRR
@@googaagoogaa12345678yeah
Wow I cant belive thats a real video of twa 800 before it crashed great video I live 2 minutes away from smith point beach where my uncles freind witnessed the crash great video:D
It's a video of the same plane taken 5 years prior to TWA800.
What did your uncle's friend see? The CIA, FBI, and NTSB interviews have been released, and you might consider asking your uncle to make a FOIA and Privacy Act request to review the report for accuracy.
Captain must have known he was being filmed....thats why he pull a wheelie before rotatation!! show off!! miss this era of aviation! TWA was a beautiful livery!!
If an older aircraft is well maintained, it is perfectly safe. TWA 800 exposed a flaw in the maintenance procedures/design of 747 classics in general.
Are you an airplane mechanic? TWA 800 was shot down... 3 missles
@@terriholliday8038 Absolutely, what a huge cover-up.
@@mikeleventhal2093 it has been proved time and time again it was not shot down by a missile, what the lead ntsb director said was not true, he even confirmed it, but it just stuck on to the theorists, and I don't agree with both of your comments, it was Boeings faulty design of the ac unit pack. but obviously since both of you are related to Einstein and are the smartest people on earth at the moment, all those investigations were for nothing, because your stupid theories are the equivalent to dog shit. what a fucking way to disrespect the dead on the fateful sunset. sincerely, go fuck yourself.
@@terriholliday8038 where is your proof
@@terriholliday8038liar
I remember when TWA 800 happened very sad may all the souls that were on board RIP.
Best wheel stand ever 👏 👌
@Starboard76, thank you so much, I always enjoy your feedback! You're lucky to have flown on some classic seven-fours.
@seanvilla710, my friend Craig (who shot this) has zoomed into many registrations as they taxi by. It's certainly not seen in every video but in a fair number of them. I can assure you this is real, I transferred it myself from the original VHS tape that was just sitting there collecting dust. This is the aircraft in question, feel free to google N93119.
the incredible thing about the 747 are its versions that evolved ,the 747-400 have a much shorter distance being airborne thanks to the more powerful engines
RIP N93119 08/18/1971 - 07/17/1996
@dutchy1176 The -131 was specific to the model ordered by TWA, so yes, you could say each one had unique specifications for that airline. For Boeing, -23 model symbolizes AA, -22 symbolizes UA, -24, etc...each number is assigned to an aircraft depending on the airline that ordered it. -31 was TWA's symbol, -21 was Pan Am's symbol, -32 was DL's symbol...I could go on and on. The last two numbers for any model tell you which airline was the original customer for that plane.
@bearpaw72 No. All standard upper decks had nine windows, but many airlines opted to plug up six of them so it appeared the upper decks had only 3. When Flight 800 crashed, the nose hit the water with such force that the plugs were knocked out, exposing the covered up windows.
Imagine being on the coast of Long Island and see the flaming ghost of N93119 as it is torn apart peice by peice until it crashes into the sea
It’s a shame because TWA was such an amazing airline.
I’m a big fan of twa I wish they still flew even if I knew it was gonna crash I’m still gonna fly it
@@OctoberBrown a corporate raider destroyed that airline.
B747-100 is very beautiful
Navid Namini asked about the upper deck windows. The 747-100 and -200 have the same number of windows, but the -100 has all but three plugged. Most of these plugs blew out in the explosion and subsequent impact. You can see in pictures of the left side that a few are still in place. As for anti-glare paint on the nose, I can't find any evidence that the TWA 800 aircraft had it. Not sure where he got that idea from.
@dutchy1176 There have been plenty of instances where Jet-A vapors caused a fuel tank to explode and destroy the aircraft...it happened to a 737 in the Phillipines, several 707s, and N93119's sistership, N53111, in 1976 after TWA sold it to the Iranian Air Force.
@Q53bus
N93119 was twa last built 747/131(was suppose to go to eastern) , at around the time
boeing was putting 10 windows on all 747s (from line 88 onwards) most airlines like ba/nw starting adding windows to there 3 window 747s but twa covered theres up so all there 747/131 would look the same with only 3 windows
that makes 5 twa 747/131 with covered up windows
N93118 line number 151 which is still flying with the iran airforce today still only has its 6 windows showing
Thanks so much for pointing that out! I would have totally missed it.
This video of N93119 was recorded in 1991 at LAX, that's correct. The crash occurred July 17,1996, that's also correct.
Stunning
The 747-100 is a fascinating aircraft. State of the art in the late 60s and 70s, I had the impression of flying coffins in the late 90s (maybe because of Pan Am and TWA). They bought them onces and never interested. The planes seemed to be worn out. Today a 25 year old 777 feels much more modern than a 25 year old 747-100 in these times.
That's also because today's 25 year old 777 will have a cabin & IFE that's only 10 years old at most. Whereas back then seats and entertainment hadn't changed all that much in those 25 years. Less width & pitch in economy, sure, and some planes had small personal screens in business and/or first, but not much more of a difference than that.
What dates today's planes are the no smoking lights, replaced only relatively recently by no electronic gadgets lights.
Yes you do. I had a pleasent chat with you on PAA 747s once. You do care. That's why I don't get all the threats, namecalling and swearing. To some extent, you admire the pilots, and other airline staff that look at this stuff. They read all that agressive crap too.
I remember seeing those great big red tails at Terminal 3 at LAX. Great memory. I really liked TWA's 'candy cane' livery....but not as much as their iconic 'double globe' livery!
Ryan, I have a couple of Aviation Media VHS videos ('Plane Spotters' and 'The Legendary 707'). Are these available on DVD? I've almost worn them out!
The plane herself and everyone on her met a tragic and violent end. Godspeed TWA 800.
💔💔💔💔😭
freaky to see the actual plane in normal condition, knowing it doesnt exist anymore and literally exploded. It was even ragged back then, paint falling off. TWA didnt take care of their planes and sadly it caught up to this bird.
everything you just said is really ignorant. btw, the plane did not explode as suggested. That is impossible. The only thing that "caught up" to the 747, was a missile.
@@robshef718 it has been proved time and time again it was not shot down by a missile, what the lead ntsb director said was not true, he even confirmed it, but it just stuck on to the theorists, and I don't agree with his comment either, it was Boeings faulty design of the ac unit pack. but obviously since both of you are related to Einstein and are the smartest people on earth at the moment, all those investigations were for nothing, because your stupid theories are the equivalent to dog shit. what a fucking way to disrespect the dead on the fateful sunset. sincerely, go fuck yourself.
@@robshef718 nope
@@animegamingdude Oh that's right, You missed the memo about the court case where a judge found the NTSB for Fraud.
@@robshef718liar, you never loved god and America, you never understood that anything you don't understand is not a conspiracy theory
My grandfather got his check-ride on that same airplane back in the mid-1970s'.
You and I both know that from the 230 people on board, a great number, if not most of them, were very aware of the events unfolding. They watched the flames swallow up everything in front of them, before they themselves were burned alive as they decended towards the sea. How is that the way to go??
Dang that rotation took forever
Imagine being on that very plane on the day of the accident …but on the flight BEFORE. I would love to hear stories of the people and their reactions. Once they heard the plane they just got off of …exploded a couple hours later.
I remember reading on a forum, the OP flew on the aircraft's penultimate flight, if I recall from Athens to JFK. A few hours later she left for Paris and never returned.
Now that is eerie.
I do believe that penultimate Athens - JFK flight may well have passed over my grandparent's house in southern Italy where I would spend every summer. I was 7 years old and we were having the whole house rebuilt at the time.
I have no recollection of the news mentioning the crash and only found out about it a few years later when mention of "high voltage cables crossed with low voltage cables" on TV piqued my interest - especially as at the time the big news was another crash that had just happened.
@@tiadaidthat very flight is one of the reasons why, beyond other factors, I have a hard time believing the official outcome of the investigation of the crash. From Athens to New York is a ten hour flight in minus 50-70 degrees Celsius temperatures. Yet, during a mere 4 hour stop at JFK, we're supposed to believe that the centre wing tank got as hot and volatile as the report says. My belief is that this 93.000 hour Queen of the skies was fit to fly, but that external forces from at least one missile (navy or terrorist) caused her demise. She took off in place of an EL AL 747. Could of been mistaken identity. But there was also a navy training exercise taking place right below her flightpath.
@@dutchy11764 hour stop with the airconditioning packs on at full blast radiating 115 degree centograde heat below the fuel tank.
seems like rotation took a while on takeoff lol, those front wheels were off the ground for a while
Can't believe it's been that long... remember it clear as day.
Ill fated N93119 that crashed on July 17th 1996 en route from JFK to Paris. R.I.P to those on board 😔
In answer to both questions: 1) Because it has been my experience that people who believe certain things fall into a category where they "follow the crowd" and question everything. TWA 800 bomb, Bush created 9/11, The Bilderbergers, etc. And 2) To believe anything other than the NTSB report (which was completed in painstaking detail), is (in my opinion) kooky. This thing has been addressed so many times now that I can't believe people believe anything BUT what's in that report.
Smitty, I have a couple of questions for you then. One, WHY were FBI agents crawling all over Long Island confiscating photos people had taken of the steak of light that impacted Flight 800? Why would they CONFISCATE evidence of a crime like that? Why would they hide evidence? Seems fishy to me. Also, what about the military helo pilots flying nearby that night? There was a National Guard helo in the area that night, and the pilots said that they'd seen a missile. Who would better know what a missile in flight looks like than a military pilot, either fixed or rotary wing?
As for me, I don't know what happened to TWA 800. Was it a bomb? Was it a missile? Was it a terrorist act? Was it a Navy ship accidentally firing on a civil airliner? Google Iran Air 655. It was accidentally shot down by two missiles from the USS Vincennes (CG-49) on 3 July 1988. If that had happened once, why couldn't it have happened again, particularly since the US Navy was in the area on 17 July 1996? I've seen compelling theories for both the bomb and missile. That said, I know this: the "official" version (i.e. the center tank) is TOTAL BULLSHIT! It makes about as much sense as WTC 1, 2, and 7 falling in their own footprints-even though only two of them (WTC 1&2) were even hit by an airplane; WTC 7 wasn't hit by anything, yet it fell in to its own footprint at near freefall speed.. The center tank theory of TWA 800's demise makes about as much sense as the official version of 9/11 does...
@@markymarknj the twins falling on their own footprints was because of their hollow tube structure.
It was like a paper straw (the outside steel vertical columns) full of wadding (the horizontal floors connecting these outside columns to the vertical core columns); both elements relied on the other to stay upright. When the crippled floors ultimately gave way (their light truss horizontal structures weakened by both the shockwave of impact - which was absolutely brutal - and the hour+ of fire) they fell down, dislodging each floor below in turn as each fell on the next, pancaking down through the tube like when you blow the wadding out the paper straw.
And just like the straw which now has no support & crumples, the core & perimeter columns now have no support and collapse in on themselves.
@@visionist7 but the trussed floor weren't designed or built to connect the exterior walls of WTC 1&2 to the inner column; that's number one. Number two, the exterior walls were designed and built to carry the vertical loads of the buildings and provide their strength. Number three, WTC 1&2 were designed with aircraft impacts in mind. Remember that the Empire State Building was hit by an airplane. Also remember that you have the three NYC area airports all nearby; I'm talking about LGA, JFK, and EWR. EWR could be seen from the Twin Towers. Finally, you TOTALLY IGNORED WTC7! How did it come down when it wasn't hit by an aircraft? Why did WTC7 fall at freefall speed? Rather than take my word for it, take a gander at this Modern Marvels documentary about the WTC: th-cam.com/video/aiyDLdUWlDM/w-d-xo.html
I'd like you to start paying attention at 30:43, where they start talking about the then radical construction techniques used to build the Twin Towers. At 31:09, Professor Gillespie starts discussing how skyscrapers are typically built. At 31:43, the professor goes on to discuss the exterior skeleton system. At 32:36, Professor Gillespie then compares the Twin Towers' construction method to a celery stick in terms of how it works. Then, at 32:52, is the coup de grace: WTC structural engineer, Frank DeMartini, discussing how the Twin Towers were not only built to sustain an impact from an aircraft, but could sustain multiple hits. DeMartini likened the structure of WTC 1&2 to that of a mosquito netting, and how it could sustain MULTIPLE IMPACTS from aircraft-small note!
I won't say for sure what brought down WTC 1, 2, and 7, I will say this: it DID NOT happen like the US Government said...
@@markymarknj I don't know about building 7 but it was allowed to burn completely out of control for hours and no attempt of any kind was made to fight the fire.
The structure of the twins was completely interdependent. The core vertical columns were connected horizontally by beams on the outside of the core which could be stripped clean away by the collapsing floors, leaving the core columns standing like glorified toothpicks before they collapsed. There are several videos showing the core just visible through the concrete floor dust before it gives in too. The perimeter columns on the other hand were connected vertically to each other by nothing more than four stout bolts at the higher levels. The bolt holes are easily visible in the wreckage. This was the Port Authority being cheap - just like they skipped any fire suppression system at first being under no authority to install one except their own.
The claims of being built to withstand aircraft impacts were marketing whoreshit, backed up by absolutely nothing. In any case a narrowbody 707 (the state of the art in the mid 60s) coming in to land without a load of fuel and hitting a tower, flaps down, at approach speed is not a widebody 767 doing 500+ MPH loaded down with 10000 US gallons of volatile jet A. The plane that hit the ESB was a small piston engined bomber weighing about a tenth of a 767.
Obviously.
If any conspiracy exists, it's the usual one: corruption and profiteering during the twin's construction, in the name of the mob and their construction unions, who also ensured the new building wouldn't be completed without spending billions of dollars on "security" features.
@@visionist7 you ever hear of the Windsor Tower in Madrid? It was a skyscraper that burned for over 24 hours, yet it DID NOT COLLAPSE! I don't claim to know exactly what happened on 9/11, but I know that the "official version" isn't the truth. Here's something else to consider: WHY was all the debris from 9/11 so hurriedly carted off, hmmm? Why was it never examined after such a horrific crime?
Oh, and here's something else: the 767 was NOT doing 500 mph! It's not able to do so that low to the ground, thanks to the thick, dense air. That's what 767 instructor pilots have said; the aircraft simply cannot travel that fast so close to the ground.
Now, what's to say that the Twin Towers weren't designed for a higher speed impact? You know that, in addition to landing at the nearby airports (LGA, JFK, and EWR), that aircraft also takeoff from all three, right? If they're taking off, wouldn't they be full of fuel, as they were at the beginning of their flights? Also, wouldn't they be traveling well above landing speed, as they were climbing to their enroute altitudes? Granted, they wouldn't be at full speed; no aircraft is in a climb. That said, they'd be traveling well above landing speed. With that in mind, wouldn't the Twin Towers need to be designed and built for a higher speed impact?
Finally, here's something else to consider: soon after 9/11, I did rough calculations of the kinetic energy that both the 707 and 767 would deliver. Do you know what? They were ABOUT THE SAME! Why is that? Though the 707 is smaller and lighter than the 767, it has a faster top speed; since ke=1/2*m*v^2, even a minor change in velocity will lead to a major change in kinetic energy. This explains why a motorcycle traveling at high speed can total a car during a collision. This is also why a baseball player is taught to snap his wrists while swinging the bat; this is why golfers are taught to do the same during their swings. It's to increase rotational velocity, which in turn increased tangential velocity; this increased tangential velocity imparts maximum kinetic energy to the ball, thus driving it farther. Anyway, even though the 707 is a smaller, lighter aircraft, it is faster; because it is faster, it would be capable of imparting approximately the same kinetic energy as a 767 would upon impact.
Finally, there's also the fact that Minoru Yamasaki and the structural engineers working with him designed the Twin Towers to sustain impact from aircraft. Frank DeMartini, the structural engineer overseeing the towers, said the same; he said that the external skeleton structure would have no problem sustaining multiple impacts from aircraft, that it would be akin to a pencil penetrating a screen. I don't know about you, but I'd be inclined to take the words of the above gentlemen over that of a lying, corrupt gov't official!
Sad to see a TWA 747 go, especially exploding over the ocean. RIP Thomas Weatherby
looks super heavy
So this is TWA 800 accident plane, it’s a 747-131 bought new by TWA in 1970. It was supposed to fly for Eastern until they stopped their 747 orders
♫your gonna like us! TWA♫
@Pvjinflight Maybe so, but it was far from the only 747 that had that problem. And that had more to do with the method of maintenance, not the age of the plane. This was not a maintenance practice that was banned either. In any case, the wiring in this condition after Flight 800 was promptly removed from all other 747s that had it. And besides, United and Northwest operated 747 classics just as old as this plane until the end of the 1990s. Northwest flew their first 747 for almost 30 years.
Beautiful ship...looks like a name on the nose, but can't read it..anyone out there know what it says? RIP Flight #800. RIP TWA.
" 747 Skyliner"
jetfreak4 Go play with yourself you fucking troll. Why you're still not blocked from any of these video's is a big mystery to me. There is absolutely no reason for you to respond to my comments the way you do, because they are not directed at you to begin with. I thought I'd help the guy out with his question, as I was watching this video anyway. if you're so fucking smart, then why don't you answer any of these questions, and keep it civilized for a change....oh, wait. You CAN'T keep it civilized...that's right I forgot.
dutchy1176 You're a little punk,. If you knew me you would think twice before running your mouth. And I'm glad I hit a nerve. I'm tired of your annoying persistence into the idea that TWA Flight 800 was downed by a missile. There is no evidence of a missile except eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable. Conspiracists like you are sad pieces of work that need to be locked up, medicated, and brainwashed of the ridiculous thoughts you have.
jetfreak4 Well, I guess if I can´t answer anybody else´s questions anymore without you interfering the way you do, then you´re the one with the problem. I was more than willing to leave it where it was at months ago, but it´s your persistence that´s getting the better of everything, not mine. I don´t understand why it´s such a problem to not believe in the final report of this disaster, when nobody who wrote it actually knows for sure what triggered the explosion. I´m no 9-11 truther, nor much of a believer in other events that have been made into speculation of conspiracy. Just flt 800.And just who are you anyway? IMO just another person with plenty of guts from behind a computer, but not so much otherwise. I don't want to fight with anybody, not on here, not anywhere. Leave me the fuck alone.
Buddy, if you said the kind of shit to me you've been saying in person, you'd seriously be fucked up. I am a competitive lifter who knows how to box.I am not at all afraid to talk to you like this offline because you would be on the ground before you knew what hit you. You think you're right in doubting the report...all you have is an opinion. And then there are some who go out and say it was a missile when there is no evidence to support it. Unlike the fuel quantity indication short, which has plenty of circumstantial evidence supporting its failure. I will leave you the fuck alone, because you're a waste of time. You wanna fight, I'll give you my address. Let's see how much of a man you really are.
Is this the same registration as TWA 800?
Yes
The FQIS wiring short-circuiting is really the only way that the center fuel tank could have exploded once you eliminate all other possible causes...they couldn't determine the source of the voltage because the wires were basically charred and useless from hitting the water at over 500 mph. The CVR skipping over several times prior to the explosion, combined with the data from the fuel quantity indication system, and the conversation about engine number 4, all makes other scenarios unlikely.
So number 4 was the engine that severed its own reverser cable on landing from Athens? Did the reverser stay open and they taxied to the gate (they arrived early I believe - did they have to wait for a gate?) with the reverser open? I know they also didn't start one of the engines immediately on pushback after and waited till they almost reached the runway (22R I believe). Was this also engine 4 I wonder.
I presume the delay on the ground was to fix the reverser. There's a discrepancy on how long they were on the ground too. I've read it was as long as 5 hours (arrived 30 minutes early, 2 hour layover and over 2 hours to fix the reverser). That's a very long time to sit under the sun with the AC packs running. I bet the vents inside were gushing cold mist during boarding. Every time I see that today it reminds me of TWA 800 & quietly freaks me out a bit
I flew on this bird March 7, 1992: TW 720, LAX-STL
@Spongebob Squarepants maya not everyone is a liar. How do you know if they lied or not? Do you have a camera watching them?
RIP TWA800
In BING: (type in and case sensitive) TWA 800 / NLJ It should be the first article, which is a short overview of our case.
Rob Shef ???
x_x Kerwin Yeo/EA Aviation x_x ???????
Rob Shef what do you mean?
wow..so you actually flew it...what kind of condition was she in? Also...a little curious...did she operate Flight 800 the day before? There is a photo dated July 16, 1996 that shows N93119 on approach to CDG from JFK, but I have no way of verifying her flight logs.