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

41–50 of 270 posts

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

#41

Post by ceejayoz »

ipsin wrote: post #35
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?

> What about the Navy radar tracks for an intercepting missile

The radar tracks are detailed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#Missile_or_bomb...

They're not from the Navy (they're ATC tracks), they don't intersect, and one of them's going 30 knots.

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

#42

Post by [deleted] »

cronix wrote: post #30
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.

It sounds more like "take over" than "assistance."

[deleted]

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

#43

Post by [deleted] »

orangepurple wrote: post #27
krolden wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

[deleted]

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

#44

Post by ceejayoz »

CentralHarvest wrote: post #34
ceejayoz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's entirely likely some of the remaining JFK files - a big batch got released under Trump, and another under Biden - are victims of over-classification. It's a systemic problem in the government.

It's also fairly likely some of the remaining classified docs include "we asked our mole at the Russian embassy to check into it discreetly" and "spy satellites checked to see if Russia was quietly mobilizing in advance" sort of scenarios likely to remain indefinitely secret.

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

#45

Post by xhkkffbf »

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…

I distinctly remember how very soon after the crash, the TV announced that the DOD put out a statement that there were no ships nearby and the plane wasn't hit by a missile. Before anyone accused anyone of anything. It seemed a bit too suspicious for that to be among the first things on the news.

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

#46

Post by jrockway »

lbotos wrote: post #18

Interesting claims from the lawsuit linked: "However, instead of allowing the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”), the agency tasked with investigating all domestic aviation incidents, to lead the investigation of the TWA 800 incident, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”)took charge. The FBI also enlisted the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency(“CIA”). Indeed, the FBI essentially froze the…

What always surprises me is how bad people are at covering up the cover up. Why deny access to radar tapes? Just make fake tapes that say what you want.

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

#47

Post by bombcar »

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.

I’m not entirely sure how a loose wire in a fuel tank can cause an explosion but a loose missile in the same tank cannot.

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

#48

Post by yucky »

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.

>Missile damage to aircraft leaves very distinct and VERY obvious traces

And conveniently the CIA prevented the NTSB from doing their normal investigation, so I guess we'll never know what obvious traces may or may not have been.

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

#49

Post by Sebguer »

orangepurple wrote: post #27
krolden wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

Can you source that quote?

The closest I can find that made it to actual commanders is:

"If hostilities cannot repeat not be avoided the United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act. This policy should not repeat not be construed as restricting you to a course of action that might jeopardize your defense."

Which is very different from the conspiratorial intent you're implying.

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

#50

Post by yucky »

ceejayoz wrote: post #22
anonuser123456 wrote: post #20

This 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.

>I'm of the opinion that the missile theory is unlikely, but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate.

If the government accidentally blew the plane up and the CIA covered it up, then who exactly would be putting pressure on Boeing?

Post reply on HN