161–170 of 270 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I went through a few years in which I saw many anti-aircraft missiles... How many exploding, breaking-up 747s, though?
Come now. If you've seen one detonation compromosing a man made structure, nevermind one that is carefully constructed specifically to repeatedly take off under its own power you've seen about all you need to see.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 cl…
For reference: this crash was covered in great details by "Admiral Cloudberg": https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/memories-of-flame-the-cr... Here's the part of his conclusion relevant to this new development: "And it is perhaps understandable that we struggle to ascribe an event so utterly horrible to the mere banality of fate, a sequence of mundane events that could have happened anywhere and at any time. No, we f…
Eh, I'd say the vast majority of people find it much more comforting to embrace the "mere banality of fate" explanation than to even entertain the idea that an errant missile test could be covered up by putting intelligence agencies in charge of the investigation -- let alone that it actually was .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
"The filing states claims for negligence" Accidently shooting down an airplane w a missile is "negligence?"
Doing it deliberately would be murder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I went through a few years in which I saw many anti-aircraft missiles... How many exploding, breaking-up 747s, though?
Come now. If you've seen one detonation compromosing a man made structure, nevermind one that is carefully constructed specifically to repeatedly take off under its own power you've seen about all you need to see.
It could be superman.