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

81–90 of 270 posts

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

#81

Post by fsociety999 »

Pretty funny to look at this description on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800_conspiracy_theo...

> TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories are discredited alternative explanations of the crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 (TWA 800) in 1996.[1] The NTSB found that the probable cause of the crash of TWA Flight 800 was an explosion of flammable fuel/air vapors in a fuel tank, most likely from a short circuit. Conspiracy theories claim that the crash was due to a U.S. Navy missile test gone awry, a terrorist missile strike, or an on-board bomb.

Now ask yourself, what else is the Government lying about? It will be interesting to see if the truth about 9/11 ever comes out.

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

#82

Post by ceejayoz »

theflyingelvis wrote: post #75
ceejayoz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Right. But, recommendations are not airworthiness directives.

What airworthiness directive should they have issued? Mitigation systems for this issue are now required, but "shut down air travel until they're in place" would not have been feasible, especially as the issue wasn't limited to the one aircraft type.

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

#83

Post by yongjik »

orangepurple wrote: post #59
Sebguer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ext…

> The US started putting impossible demands on Japan to suffocate them economically and militarily ...

This is the same historical revisionist nonsense floated by Japanese right wing to claim that Japan was somehow "forced" to attack America and WW2 was a just war of defense.

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

#84

Post by pxmpxm »

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…

Exactly which part of this is new evidence? What you wrote is the basis of the original conspiracy theory, that NTSB rejected.

Also we have multiple recent events of a commercial jet being shot down by a contemporary AA system, in each of those the causality is pretty obvious.

eg: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ENykmLaXkAAGslH.png

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

#85

Post by alamortsubite »

orangepurple wrote: post #59
Sebguer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ext…

> 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.

Precisely what sanctions did the US and EU levy before Russia invaded Ukraine?

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

#86

Post by MichaelCollins »

orangepurple wrote: post #59
Sebguer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ext…

Japan had plenty of oil and energy to sustain peaceful operations. They "needed" more oil to wage their land war in China and naval conquest across the Pacific. They tried negotiating with the Dutch to get oil from the Dutch East Indies. When these negotiations failed, they hatched a plan to take that oil by force. The subsequent oil embargo against Japan was a response to that. The reason they picked a fight with America was because the American occupied Philippines was located directly between Japan and the Dutch East Indies. They knew that to take the Dutch East Indies they would need to take the Philippines as well, so they decided to destroy the US Navy first.

Internet commenters like to make a big deal out of the oil embargo, saying that America twisted Japan's arm and forced them into a war. This is not true. Japan's arm was twisted by their own imperial ambition which demanded that oil. If they never had that ambition they would not have needed that oil in the first place, nor would they have been slapped with an oil embargo.

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

#87

Post by macintux »

orangepurple wrote: post #59
Sebguer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ext…

Or maybe neighbors were armed because Russia has a long history of invading them.

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

#88

Post by thriftwy »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #67
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

1. You should never use the CIA as a moral example for your children. 2. With respect to lying about hundreds of people dying, is that really a surprise to you? Just a few possible examples off the top of my head. RMS Lusitania, claimed to be carrying tens if not hundreds of tons of undeclared high explosives, which would have made it a 'legitimate' target for the u-boat that sank it. This is officially denied, but t…

Unfortunately, if the USA may repeatedly hit-and-run Soviet/Russian submarines it sounds like a worthy tactic instead of an accident. Blame should be on the Soviet/Russian side for failing to counter.

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

#89

Post by leetrout »

some_random wrote: post #80
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'm really not convinced, the linchpin of the missile argument is that the CIA and FBI were put in charge to cover up a missile shootdown, but it's pretty well documented that they were put in charge because it was a suspected terrorist attack. Everything else is circumstantial evidence at best. I'm certainly interested in what shakes out of this court case, but as of right now it just seems like a typical conspiracy…

From the paperwork:

45. Two other eyewitnesses, Air National Guard pilots, Captain Christian Baur and Major Frederick “Fritz” Meyer, similarly stated that they witnessed events that indicated a missile struck TWA 800. 46. On the day TWA 800 went down, Captain Baur and Major Meyer were flying in a Black Hawk helicopter near the area of the TWA 800 incident. Captain Baur recalled seeing an object with a “rocket type motor . . . moving quick” toward TWA 800. After the crash, Captain Baur flew to the area and conducted a search and rescue.

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

#90

Post by nfriedly »

orangepurple wrote: post #59
Sebguer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ext…

> 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.

I think you're getting things out of order there - the economic sanctions came after the invasion.

Don't forget that Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014; that also was met with sanctions.

Post reply on HN