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

51–60 of 270 posts

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

#51

Post by trasz »

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.

FBI and CIA could easily “unrecover“ parts of evidence with those marks.

(“The IAMAW strongly criticized the FBI's conduct during the investigation, including the undocumented removal by FBI agents of wreckage from the hangar where it was stored”, from the Wikipedia link above.)

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

#53

Post by ceejayoz »

bombcar wrote: post #47
thunderbird120 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

95% of the wreckage was recovered and painstakingly reconstructed in a hangar, then kept for 25 years (and notably, used as a training aid for NTSB investigators during that time). Barring some sort of "huh, this looks like something went in rather than out", that's a fairly hard theory to push.

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

#54

Post by ceejayoz »

yucky wrote: post #50
ceejayoz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Is this a trick question?

The government and specifically the CIA, presumably.

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

#55

Post by ceejayoz »

theflyingelvis wrote: post #52

I remember thinking it was odd that there weren’t any airworthiness directives issued for the center fuel tank.

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

> During the course of its investigation, and in its final report, the NTSB issued 15 safety recommendations, mostly covering fuel tank and wiring-related issues. Among the recommendations was that significant consideration should be given to the development of modifications such as nitrogen-inerting systems for new airplane designs, and where feasible, for existing airplanes.

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

#57

Post by Sebguer »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #38
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.

Tbf, the implication in the filing is that the plaintiffs weren't aware of the possibility until last year.

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

#59

Post by orangepurple »

Sebguer wrote: post #49
orangepurple wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, I believe that's the exact quote. The US started putting impossible demands on Japan to suffocate them economically and militarily and when it was obvious that Japan was pushed to the breaking point the attack on Pearl Harbor was "allowed" to justify the ensuing war back home.

Interestingly I see a lot of parallels in the war in Ukraine right now. The US and EU started arming bordering countries and applying extreme economic sanctions on Russia in rapid succession and "everyone" was surprised that the invasion occurred. Now everyone sees Russia as the overt oppressor. Mission accomplished?

https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/did-the-us-provoke-japans-...

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

#60

Post by trasz »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #24
anonuser123456 wrote: post #20

This 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.

Of course they would be vindicated; they would just lose military contracts afterwards. In a way that’s not in any way related to this affair of course.
Post reply on HN