If there’s any meat in this case, they left it out of the filing. It’s basically the plane exploded, the navy owns missiles, QED. The part about the plucky retiree who unearths the truth is actually a big red flag.
Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash
21–30 of 270 posts
Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash
#22This would require Boeing's cooperation. Not clear why Boeing would cooperate given the legal risks.
> Not clear why Boeing would cooperate given the legal risks.
You mean other than their many billions in military contracts, and criminal penalties for releasing classified information?
I'm of the opinion that the missile theory is unlikely, but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate.
Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash
#23The lawsuit[0] is worth a read and goes into quite a bit of detail about the claimed timeline. Roughly:
* Upgraded missile defense systems were deemed a national security priority around this time
* Navy ships compatible with these systems were 5 years out, so…
* Live missile testing happens at a compatible land base in New Jersey, under congested airspace
* Multiple civilians report seeing missile tests in & around the date of the TWA crash
* Missile test hits TWA jet. Instead of the NTSB running the investigation (like normal), the CIA and FBI are immediately put in charge
* CIA/FBI confiscate records, run PR campaign claiming the crash was “NOT A MISSILE”, mislead the families and general public about the incident
* Missile tests continue post-crash
Damning if true, to say the least.
[0] https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Massachusetts_District_Cou...
Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash
#24This would require Boeing's cooperation. Not clear why Boeing would cooperate given the legal risks.
How do you figure? Reflexive anti-Boeing groupthink? The government's narrative is that the plane blew itself up, e.g. it was Boeing's fault. The lawsuit contents that the plane was shot down, accidentally, by the US military.
Boeing already took the reputational hit. If the allegations of the lawsuit are correct, it was never Boeing's fault in the first place. Boeing would be vindicated.
Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash
#25For reference: this crash was covered in great details by "Admiral Cloudberg": https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/memories-of-flame-the-cr...
Here's the part of his conclusion relevant to this new development: "And it is perhaps understandable that we struggle to ascribe an event so utterly horrible to the mere banality of fate, a sequence of mundane events that could have happened anywhere and at any time. No, we find it much more comfortable to believe that humanity is the only force capable of imagining an act of such malice, closing our minds to the knowledge that the unthinking universe could just as easily conjure those 54 terrible seconds of existential agony. Believing that that agony was the product of a human mind allows us to indulge our fantasy that someone is in control, saving us from the disturbing thought that perhaps we, too, are merely passengers aboard a pilotless airplane hurtling toward an uncertain zenith."
Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah the fact that it was the CIA releasing the video always seemed like a red flag to me. Why were they even involved in the investigation? Why didn’t those statements come from the FAA?
That's readily answerable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 > At the start of FBI's investigation, because of the possibility that international terrorists might have been involved, assistance was requested from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). > Why didn’t those statements come from the FAA? They wouldn't normally; without any potential of criminal activity, they'd come from the NTSB.
So why did the CIA produce a video about the fuel tank exploding, when that is something clearly within the purview of the NTSB? Why did they continue to devote resources when it was established that it was not a terrorist attack?
Aviation incident analysis is not one of the CIA’s core competencies, but propaganda is.
Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash
#27I was always curious about how so many witnesses saw a streak of light shoot up to the plane which then exploded. I was never convinced by the video the CIA released that explained what those witnesses actually saw was a trail of burning jet fuel going away from the plane.
So this tells us its OK to lie as long as 200 people die and you can tie up the evidence for a couple decades. I'll remember that when I'm teaching my kids its bad to lie about stealing an extra cookie. Thanks CIA, etc
People still believe the Pearl Harbor attack was an inevitable occurrence or a radar detection and communications problem almost 100 years later. President Roosevelt told General Marshall to send a message to the Hawaiian commanders: "Don't interfere with Japan's overt act of war. The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act."
Maybe in 100 years the questions and evidence presented in the 5 hour documentary "September 11: The New Pearl Harbor (2013)" will be answered and/or justified.
Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Missile damage to aircraft leaves very distinct and VERY obvious traces as you would expect from a bunch of shrapnel suddenly slicing through the fuselage at hundreds of different points. If you want an example look at the reconstructed fuselage Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 which got shot down over Ukraine. 95% of the fuselage of TWA 800 was recovered. It was not hit by a surface to air a missile.
What if it was skin-to-skin impacted by an unarmed missile?
TWA 800 violently exploded in mid air. That would not be caused by an inert missile impact. The high speed impact of an inert body into an aircraft the size of a 747 is not a reasonable explanation for a violent in-flight breakup on top of the fact that there is literally zero evidence for it. The most likely explanation is exactly what is written in the official report.
Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash
#29For reference: this crash was covered in great details by "Admiral Cloudberg": https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/memories-of-flame-the-cr... Here's the part of his conclusion relevant to this new development: "And it is perhaps understandable that we struggle to ascribe an event so utterly horrible to the mere banality of fate, a sequence of mundane events that could have happened anywhere and at any time. No, we f…
Eh, I'd say the vast majority of people find it much more comforting to embrace the "mere banality of fate" explanation than to even entertain the idea that an errant missile test could be covered up by putting intelligence agencies in charge of the investigation -- let alone that it actually was.
Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah the fact that it was the CIA releasing the video always seemed like a red flag to me. Why were they even involved in the investigation? Why didn’t those statements come from the FAA?
That's readily answerable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 > At the start of FBI's investigation, because of the possibility that international terrorists might have been involved, assistance was requested from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). > Why didn’t those statements come from the FAA? They wouldn't normally; without any potential of criminal activity, they'd come from the NTSB.
It sounds more like "take over" than "assistance."