FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

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.

vlefaive Man...Astonishing documentary alleges seriously that the U.S. government-including the FBI and DOJ-are corrupt and cover-up the truth concerning the mysterious crash of TWA Ft 800 on July 17, 1996.Flight 800 was possibly destroyed by a surface-to-air missile or missiles. Every allegation made in this film is backed up with facts also dramatic are those that come from the Federal agencies themselves.Shared is what hundreds ( more than 700 ) official eyewitnesses actually saw; why aviators reject the CIA "cartoon" explanation; how the Feds criminally suppressed reporting; the damning radar data and documentation; the critical witness drawings; the rigged NTSB hearings; the altered physical evidence; undeniable proof of explosive residue proving a missile strike; the stinging report from the machinist union. What I want to know ? WHY ? WHY ? WHY ?

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.

imdb-4992 Thank you to the courageous Americans who are putting their reputation on the line to bring up the lies we were told about TWA flight 800. Watch out for "reviewers" who attack the documentary with the intent to discourage people from watching it and coming to their own conclusions. I recall watching a retired Air Force Pilot who went on CSPAN debunk this "center fuel tank explosion" theory years ago, and he was a credible as any person I've listened to. That was when I first realized (sadly I admit) that our government lies to us and that they cannot be trusted. I am a psychologist and I'm frightened at how psychology was referenced by the government to imply that eye witness testimony is so unreliable as a means to discredit hundreds of eye witnesses to what was a very basic event (little details to get mixed up). Listen to the eye witnesses in this documentary and see for yourself if they seem credible. I've watched lots of documentaries and I don't often agree with them because I think they don't provide all of the details or distort the facts. I also look for who has an agenda to push. I see no ulterior motives with those who are interviewed for this movie. I just recommend that you watch it for yourself, and if it's your first exposure to how easily our government lies to its citizens, be prepared to be discouraged (and hopefully motivated to make some changes).