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

121–130 of 270 posts

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

#121

Post by thfuran »

sonotathrowaway wrote: post #115
some_random wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whereas the lynchpin of your argument, inasmuch as there is one, is "pfff, who needs evidence when you can have allegations instead".

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

#122

Post by synu »

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.

I’ve now seen hundreds of missiles striking their targets thanks to the Ukraine war. It looks pretty much exactly like you would guess it looks like.

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

#123

Post by MichaelCollins »

ceejayoz wrote: post #44
CentralHarvest wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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" s…

It's also possible that some of the JFK files might implicate an influential American ally, with whom JFK had a dispute concerning their nuclear weapons program.

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

#124

Post by bombcar »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #116
thriftwy wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 closel…

Also allowing the Soviets to claim an undersea accident vs “you totally rammed our sun you idiot” allows them to save face and also prevents escalation.

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

#125

Post by thunderbird120 »

tanseydavid wrote: post #65
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.

>> 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 Please explain this assertion. It makes no sense (at least to me).

It's exceptionally difficult to make a large airliner explode like a gas station in a 1980s action movie by hitting it with an inert missile-sized body. You could certainly cause damage which would cause it to eventually crash but TWA 800 violently exploded in mid air, which is different.

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

#126

Post by MrPatan »

jrockway wrote: post #46
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.

That sounds like work.

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

#127

Post by ceejayoz »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #74
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.

>but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate. Boeing is not 'a person' and neither is the government. Boeing is a conglomerate of affiliated smaller organizations. So is the FBI and CIA. Understanding those dynamics is what makes this scenario so implausible. - Boeing commercial programs are separately funded from military. The executives and engineers in charge generally have no int…

> Boeing commercial programs are separately funded from military.

Boeing still has a top level of management; the CEO's purview includes everything from SLS to Air Force tankers to the 737-MAX's problems.

> There are no laws in the US that allow executives and staff to defraud shareholders and the board on behalf of the government.

National security letters are a prominent counterexample to this claim.

> There are no provisions for "It's OK to lie for the good guys".

James Clapper lied to Congress about PRISM without repercussions.

> At the end of the day, someone at Boeing legal would have to sit down and look at this and say "Well, if the hundreds of people involved all agree to commit fraud and no one finds out, we're in the clear for some nebulous illegal kickback down the line line. Sign us up!"

That's backwards. Boeing Legal would go "we've been told the following items are classified Top Secret, and all of us can go to jail for disclosing them". Loss of future programs is a consequence - the stick, not the carrot.

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

#128

Post by bombcar »

ceejayoz wrote: post #31
csharpminor wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 releas…

Wouldn’t the CIA first ask if you needed it to be or not be enemy action?

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

#129

Post by icehawk »

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.

What exactly differentiates a missile from any other sort of rocket, that someone who hadn't seen a missile before would not know what it looks like?

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

#130

Post by ceejayoz »

bombcar wrote: post #128
ceejayoz wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 releas…

Wouldn’t the CIA first ask if you needed it to be or not be enemy action?

Sure, if you come to the CIA with "we need you to fake a report", they'll likely fake a report. In that scenario, though, I strongly suspect the 95% reconstructed fuselage wouldn't have been permitted to be a NTSB training aid for two decades afterwards.
Post reply on HN