Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

lawstreetmedia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 270 posts

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#31

Post by ceejayoz »

csharpminor wrote: post #26
ceejayoz wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Incident analysis - especially where explosives are concerned - is absolutely something the CIA does regularly. (As is causing such incidents.) If I asked the CIA to determine if something was enemy(ish, in this case) action, I'd expect to get a fairly detailed report explaining why or why not back.

I'm skeptical until they provide some details on the FOIL documents received.

The NTSB worked for four years and released a report, as expected.

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#32

Post by hyperbovine »

thunderbird120 wrote: post #13
bombcar wrote: post #6

This is one of those conspiracies that always seemed probably true, based on my cursory examination of the evidence. Or the other way, assume a weapons test went horribly wrong; what would the result be?

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.

> Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

This is what seals it for me. Sadly, so much time has elapsed, and the world has turned to such shit, that we have multiple other incidents to compare to. Not just MH17, but also PS752, and many others that did not receive as much attention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_inc...). TWA800 looks nothing like these.

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#33

Post by consumer451 »

eastern wrote: post #12
consumer451 wrote: post #3

Wow, how does discovery work when there are legit natsec concerns?

What are legit natsec concerns now? How about saying yeah it happened, we're sorry and we're paying a USD 100mil each to the surviving families as a token of our regret?

I didn’t think I was going out on limb in assuming that the details and limitations of a naval defense weapon were probably something to guard.

Please note that I am not defending anyone here…

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#34

Post by CentralHarvest »

ceejayoz wrote: post #8
consumer451 wrote: post #3

Wow, how does discovery work when there are legit natsec concerns?

I'm not sure what the legitimate national security concern would be for "we accidentally shot down an airliner 26 years ago".

"We have to protect all the people who were involved in the accident and coverup, some of whom may now hold important positions of power." I mean, they are still using "national security" as an excuse not to declassify JFK files nearly 60 years after the fact.

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#35

Post by ipsin »

jeffbee wrote: post #21

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.

What about the Navy radar tracks for an intercepting missile, and how those, like witness accounts, were actively discounted and suppressed, in favor of a "no missile" narrative?

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#36

Post by Shorel »

Avianca Flight 203, the one Pablo Escobar blows up in the TV show Narcos, was probably an engine failure.

https://reportajes.elespectador.com/avianca-203/?outputType=...

As usual the official story and some details don't match, and the plane engines misterously disappeared from the crash site, preventing further inspection.

The FBI was involved.

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#37

Post by MichaelCollins »

thunderbird120 wrote: post #28
bombcar wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Being struck violently by an unarmed missile could have caused a massive structural failure of the aircraft, which then exploded.

> literally zero evidence for it.

There is literally circumstantial evidence for it, as well as eye-witness testimony. This is not "proof" by any stretch, but it's certainly evidence.

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#38

Post by MichaelCollins »

ramesh31 wrote: post #19

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why have I never heard of this?

> Why have I never heard of this?

That's on you, it's been a popular theory for many years, since the very beginning. It's one of the most popular government coverup stories there is.

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#39

Post by aliqot »

ruddct wrote: post #23

The 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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#40

Post by KidComputer »

thunderbird120 wrote: post #13
bombcar wrote: post #6

This is one of those conspiracies that always seemed probably true, based on my cursory examination of the evidence. Or the other way, assume a weapons test went horribly wrong; what would the result be?

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.

Only if it was frag warhead, it could have been a continuous-rod warhead.
Post reply on HN