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

111–120 of 270 posts

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

#111

Post by jeffbee »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #105
jeffbee wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that is new. They said that at the time. Dozens/hundreds of witnesses said same. Exactly zero of whom have ever seen a missile before and would know what one looks like.

In fact many of the witnesses were active duty military and military veterans who knew exactly what a missile looked like.

Just like in civilian life, most people in the military are truck mechanics, cooks, and suchlike. Imputing expertise upon such people is misdirection, just the same kind of misdirection this filing is using to impute authority on a person by citing him as "a physicist" and consistently referring to him as "doctor" out of context.

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

#112

Post by sonotathrowaway »

woodruffw wrote: post #77
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 feel terribly for these families, but the evidence presented in this filing is circumstantial at best: it adds nothing to contradict the overwhelming evidence (including the recovered fuselage) that nothing collided with the aircraft. It’s easy to see ghosts everywhere, and sometimes they really are there. But TWA 800 probably isn’t one of those cases.

No post body was provided.

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

#113

Post by ErikVandeWater »

jeffbee wrote: post #92
leetrout wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

None of that is new. They said that at the time. Dozens/hundreds of witnesses said same. Exactly zero of whom have ever seen a missile before and would know what one looks like.

Pretty sure plenty of people have seen missiles on the evening news at some point in their lives.

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

#114

Post by sudosysgen »

jeffbee wrote: post #111
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact many of the witnesses were active duty military and military veterans who knew exactly what a missile looked like.

Just like in civilian life, most people in the military are truck mechanics, cooks, and suchlike. Imputing expertise upon such people is misdirection, just the same kind of misdirection this filing is using to impute authority on a person by citing him as "a physicist" and consistently referring to him as "doctor" out of context.

Even truck mechanics, cooks, and the like have plenty of opportunities to see missile launches.

EDIT :

Missiles are far faster, and crucially, are on fire from the ground up. They go much straighter and produce much more consistent light than a burning half-plane, which is not capable of ascending anywhere close to vertically. They also make drastically different sounds, as one is supersonic and the other very much is not.

They really do look and sound very different. I would expect someone who has seen and heard dozens of launches of that exact missile to be able to make it out quite easily. There are plenty of videos of that online and the difference is quite obvious. Especially someone who is used to this exact model of missile would be able to tell them apart.

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

#115

Post by sonotathrowaway »

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…

The linchpin of your argument seems to be that we need to believe the official reason given, and that the CIA would never lie to the American public.

That sounds naïve to anyone with even a passing familiarity with American history.

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

#116

Post by MichaelCollins »

thriftwy wrote: post #88
MichaelCollins wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If there were collisions, I think they were probably accidents. For one, deliberate collisions would risk the loss of the American submarine too. They weren't built for ramming.

Secondly, the circumstance of an accidental collision seems very believable. Such collisions would not have been freak accidental encounters; the main mission of US attack subs at the time was to tail Soviet ballistic missile subs very closely and not be detected. The Soviet submarine commanders had some inkling of this, and responded by making erratic maneuvers to "clear their baffles" (essentially, look behind themselves, where their sonar was otherwise blind.) Trailing an unpredictable submarine very close is inherently risky. I think the blame falls on the circumstance of the Cold War itself, which compelled both sides to believe their actions were necessary.

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

#117

Post by ceejayoz »

sudosysgen wrote: post #114
jeffbee wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like in civilian life, most people in the military are truck mechanics, cooks, and suchlike. Imputing expertise upon such people is misdirection, just the same kind of misdirection this filing is using to impute authority on a person by citing him as "a physicist" and consistently referring to him as "doctor" out of context.

Even truck mechanics, cooks, and the like have plenty of opportunities to see missile launches. EDIT : Missiles are far faster, and crucially, are on fire from the ground up. They go much straighter and produce much more consistent light than a burning half-plane, which is not capable of ascending anywhere close to vertically. They also make drastically different sounds, as one is supersonic and the other very much i…

Yes, but how many have seen a mid-air explosion of a 747 to compare against?

"It looked like a missile" may be entirely true. It may also be true that a burning, rapidly climbing half of a 747 looks a bit like a missile from afar.

Re: edit:

> Missiles are far faster

Speed is notoriously hard to measure visually. Watch a A380 come in for a landing and you'll swear it's barely moving.

> are on fire from the ground up

Most of the eyewitnesses were over the horizon from any potential launch site.

> They go much straighter and produce much more consistent light than a burning half-plane, which is not capable of ascending anywhere close to vertically

A tail-heavy half of a 747 could absolutely go vertical for a bit with the entire nose missing.

> They also make drastically different sounds, as one is supersonic and the other very much is not.

People largely reported hearing an explosion, not a sonic boom.

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

#118

Post by 13of40 »

jeffbee wrote: post #92
leetrout wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

None of that is new. They said that at the time. Dozens/hundreds of witnesses said same. Exactly zero of whom have ever seen a missile before and would know what one looks like.

Ah, I'm finally in my element here. I went through a few years in which I saw many anti-aircraft missiles, and there's nothing so unintuitive about them that a layperson would confuse them with, say, a cloud. In other words, it's a thing in the sky with fire and smoke coming out one end, traveling way faster than you would expect. Probably making a loud, high-pitched roar, depending on where you're sitting. I can't imagine 40 people giving the same mistaken testimony. On the other hand, mass hysteria is a thing, so who knows.

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

#119

Post by MichaelCollins »

woodruffw wrote: post #71
MichaelCollins wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and may be completely mistaken. But nevertheless, they are evidence. 'Evidence' doesn't imply 'proof'.

The existence of evidence is not veridical in nature: that’s why we classify evidence as circumstantial, observed, etc. In other words: if nothing has changed about the eyewitness accounts in the last 26 years, then there is no new reason to doubt the (overwhelmingly likely) explanation for them.

I responded to the claim "there is literally zero evidence for it" by pointing out that there is circumstantial evidence, and eyewitness accounts.

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

#120

Post by thunderbird120 »

tyingq wrote: post #62
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.

>That would not be caused by an inert missile impact Why not? Inert missile punches through a fuel tank, aerosolizing the fuel, and either the missile engine or a damaged aircraft engine ignites it.

That would cause a fire, not a detonation. The same way gas tanks don't actually explode if you shoot them, they spring leaks and those leaks may catch fire but actual booms require very specific circumstances. Specifically, they require the correct mixture of air and fuel vapors but that doesn't require a missile impact to ignite. Something much more mundane like a spark is just as effective and about 5 orders of magnitude more likely to occur.

TWA 800 broke apart as a result of a major overpressure event. The particular mode of in-flight failure observed in TWA 800 is very difficult to cause by poking a single missile sized hole anywhere in the aircraft. Not theoretically impossible, but difficult to the point that it's not a reasonable explanation. You have to take the combined probability of 2 very unlikely events rather than just 1.

Post reply on HN