Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by bombcar » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

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.

Making fakes is really really hard in actuality. There’s always things you forgot to fake correctly. Easiest to limit or destroy.

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

#132

Post by tgflynn » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

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.

> None of that is new.

What appears to be new is the claim that they have FOIA documents describing radar tapes that show something hitting the plane.

> Exactly zero of whom have ever seen a missile before and would know what one looks like.

I think the two Air National Guard officers cited in the parent comment likely had seen missile launches before.

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

#133

Post by jeffbee » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

13of40 wrote: post #118

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.

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 i…

The witness accounts of the supposed missile cited in the official account all describe the missile as ascending, but to fit the theory of this lawsuit it would have been fired from 120 miles away - let's just ignore that this is far out of the effective range of the rocket in question - and would have appeared to have been travelling horizontally to observers on the ground.

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

#134

Post by bombcar » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #64

Isn't there a statute of limitations? 1996 was 26 years ago.

Also I don’t know if civil suits would be subject to statues of limitation.

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

#135

Post by bombcar » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

anonuser123456 wrote: post #20

This would require Boeing's cooperation. Not clear why Boeing would cooperate given the legal risks.

Boeing successfully (for awhile) cooperated in perpetuating “the pilots were holding it wrong) with the 737 MAX.

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

#136

Post by sonotathrowaway » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

thfuran wrote: post #121

sonotathrowaway wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

No post body was provided.

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

#137

Post by bombcar » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #130

bombcar wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How many other air remains had such done to it? 25 years seems a long time.

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

#138

Post by ceejayoz » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

13of40 wrote: post #118

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.

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 i…

> I went through a few years in which I saw many anti-aircraft missiles...

How many exploding, breaking-up 747s, though?

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

#139

Post by 13of40 » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:14 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #138

13of40 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> I went through a few years in which I saw many anti-aircraft missiles... How many exploding, breaking-up 747s, though?

I don't think we ever had the training budget for that.

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

#140

Post by ceejayoz » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:14 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #137

ceejayoz wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How many other air remains had such done to it? 25 years seems a long time.

MH17 was similarly reconstructed.

https://www.reuters.com/world/mh17-aircraft-wreckage-viewed-...

Modern laser scanning makes retaining the original long-term less important, apparently.