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

#151

Post by tremon » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:37 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #10

candlemas wrote: post #7

I was always curious about how so many witnesses saw a streak of light shoot up to the plane which then exploded. I was never convinced by the video the CIA released that explained what those witnesses actually saw was a trail of burning jet fuel going away from the plane.

The theory isn't just "it's burning jet fuel", though; it's that the plane broke apart, and that the now tail-heavy back section with the wings flew upwards as the nose fell to the water. It's not an insane idea, and is at least partially backed by radar data.

Not an insane idea? How much lift can a pair of wings generate without thrust or stabilization? If the plane broke apart in mid-air, as you say, the engines would have shut down immediately. The only "thrust" the back section had remaining is the inertial energy from its moving mass. Without attitude control and with a huge gaping hole in the front acting as an air brake, I struggle to see how the plane could have climbed any more than a few meters before stalling.

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

#152

Post by djmips » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:37 PM UTC

BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 wrote: post #142

If there was a missile test that went wrong, there would be a considerable number of people involved. Even if the authorities swore everybody to secrecy, they can't prevent a retiree from making a deathbed confession.

I feel you underestimate the bonds of duty and social pressure to keep things under wraps.

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

#153

Post by woodruffw » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:40 PM UTC

csharpminor wrote: post #106

woodruffw wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They’re not just claiming circumstantial evidence. The plaintiff says they have FOIA documents describing confiscated Navy radar tapes that show an object striking TWA 800. Damning if true, but a lot hinges on documents we haven’t seen.

That would indeed be damning if true! I suppose we’ll see if and when those are made public.

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

#154

Post by jonnybgood » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:42 PM UTC

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #113

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.

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

Missile launches perhaps, but not missiles in flight.

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

#155

Post by jliptzin » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:43 PM UTC

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #104

woodruffw wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As someone who lived on Long Island at the time, I can tell you that there were dozens, if not hundreds, of eye witnesses from both the beach and the water that claimed to have seen a missile fly up and hit the plane. There was explosive residue consistent with a missile found on on the wreckage of the plane. One of the lead investigators thought it was a missile, and he was shuffled out of the investigation.

Don’t know why you are being downvoted, I am also from Long Island and remember the same accounts at the time

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

#156

Post by onionisafruit » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:43 PM UTC

csharpminor wrote: post #106

woodruffw wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They’re not just claiming circumstantial evidence. The plaintiff says they have FOIA documents describing confiscated Navy radar tapes that show an object striking TWA 800. Damning if true, but a lot hinges on documents we haven’t seen.

Those documents would be circumstantial evidence because they only show that the author claimed that there were radar tapes showing something hit TWA 800.

If the radar tapes still exist and can be presented as evidence, that would still be circumstantial evidence because they only show what the radar measured. The meaning of those measurements require interpretation to come to a conclusion that a missile hit TWA 800.

I’m not saying this would not be strong evidence, just that it would be circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence.

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

#157

Post by waynecochran » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:44 PM UTC

    "The filing states claims for negligence"

Accidently shooting down an airplane w a missile is "negligence?"

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

#158

Post by rascul » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:44 PM UTC

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…

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

Not necessarily. Based on my time in the US Army, the opportunities for most troops to see missile launches first hand are fairly low. Even for those of us who were in air defense. Live fire exercises were rare, and we never got to fire any in Afghanistan.

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

#159

Post by jonnybgood » Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 6:45 PM UTC

icehawk wrote: post #129

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.

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?