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

171–180 of 270 posts

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

#171

Post by fortran77 »

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.

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

I'm very skeptical of these claims, but many, many people--including people on Long Island--have seen missiles.

I've seen many, and I've seen them get diverted out of the air by anti-missile systems, and I've seen them strike the ground near me. (This is all from spending at least 4 month/year in Israel over the past 59+ years.)

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

#172

Post by phkahler »

closewith wrote: post #147
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…

> 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. With respect, by the time a patriot missile reaches a target like an airliner at altitude, the motor is long burnt out. No fire and no smoke (until the fuze detonates), just kinetic energy being bled for terminal guidance.

Sure, if it was a patriot missile? And since it obviously hit the wrong target who says the range was long enough to reach engine burn out. The deniers here are just making shit up.

Sometimes the government and its contractors would do better to own their mistakes, take the financial hit, and move on. Yet here we are 25 years later still dealing with it and burning credibility.

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

#173

Post by sonotathrowaway »

jonnybgood wrote: post #145
sonotathrowaway wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> They also manufactured overwhelming evidence that the Viet Cong attacked a navy ship in the Gulf of Tonkin, and that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Why would you use these examples? These are cases of them being wrong, not manufacturing. Both cases are well-documented. And the Viet Cong did attack, but only once. > They’ll gladly manufacture evidence that leads to the deaths of more t…

No, the CIA was not wrong about Saddam.

It knew internally that the regime was not producing weapons, and communicated that clearly to Bush, repeatedly.

Bush decided that he could force the CIA to manufacture evidence, so he installed political operatives that forced the CIA author reports relying on a source they knew was lying.

The answer to both questions is that you need to accept that an intelligence agency is not a person nor an objective, fact-finding institution.

They are an organization created and dedicated to advancing the interests of their executives, in the case of the US the president.

They are not bound by objective truth, nor do they have any duty to be truthful to anyone besides the president. They’ve spied on congress, hacked the senate networks, and outright lied in televised sworn testimony to congress whenever they deem that democratic oversight is beneath them - and I’m talking about the CIA of the 2010’s, not to mention the pre-church 1970’s CIA which outright murdered Americans.

They are an organization that exists to serve the interests of a single person, the idea that what they say has any relation to objective reality is laughable. They’ll say and do whatever they think serves their interest, whether it is true or false is completely irrelevant to their process.

You cannot assume any information or evidence that has been touched by them to be true or false - their aim is to manufacture evidence for any reality they want, regardless of objective reality.

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

#174

Post by macintux »

thriftwy wrote: post #97
macintux wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe neighbors were armed because Russia has a long history of invading them.

In Europe, everybody has a long history of being invaded by everybody else, so trying to spin that as "Russia bad" requires a very myopic outlook. Russia also has a long history of being invaded from the West. That's why Russia is super nervious about NATO expansion.

Last time Russia was invaded: the time they helped a genocidal maniac try to conquer Europe, 80 years ago.

Last time Russia’s neighbors were invaded by them: well, obviously, now.

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

#175

Post by jp57 »

When the incident happened I worked with a woman who had served in the Navy at sea. Her opinion was that if the they had accidentally shot down an airliner during a training/practice exercise, hundreds of people on the ship would know about it and it would be impossible to keep them all from talking.

Is there anyone from that ship who is on record saying "yeah, we shot down that plane?"

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

#176

Post by bitexploder »

mike_d wrote: post #166
onionisafruit wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

They are represented by a top tier litigation firm, not some random lawyer trying to make a name for himself. I'm sure they have expert witnesses lined up.

Expert witnesses always agree with whomever hired them. Just a point to consider.

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

#177

Post by onionisafruit »

mike_d wrote: post #166
onionisafruit wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

They are represented by a top tier litigation firm, not some random lawyer trying to make a name for himself. I'm sure they have expert witnesses lined up.

I’m sure they do. I wasn’t trying to imply they don’t have good evidence. I was only taking issue with the description that it isn’t circumstantial and secondarily the misconception people have that circumstantial evidence is weak evidence.

The only direct evidence in this case is eye witness testimony, and the government has done a pretty good job of undermining that with their typical “your lying eyes” argument. So this will be a battle of circumstantial evidence.

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

#178

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

dTal wrote: post #149
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…

And why was it a suspected terrorist attack?

https://www.state.gov/1993-world-trade-center-bombing/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings

Because terrorism exists. If there are reports that an aircraft suffered from an explosion while in flight what would you think?

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

#179

Post by [deleted] »

phkahler wrote: post #172
closewith wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. With respect, by the time a patriot missile reaches a target like an airliner at altitude, the motor is long burnt out. No fire and no smoke (until the fuze detonates), just kinetic energy being bled for terminal guidance.

Sure, if it was a patriot missile? And since it obviously hit the wrong target who says the range was long enough to reach engine burn out. The deniers here are just making shit up. Sometimes the government and its contractors would do better to own their mistakes, take the financial hit, and move on. Yet here we are 25 years later still dealing with it and burning credibility.

[deleted]

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

#180

Post by barbacoa »

jonnybgood wrote: post #154
ErikVandeWater wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B6wsujROvXg

Missile videos like the one above are common. 1996 was soon after the gulf war, tons of missiles were broadcast in the news during that time.

Post reply on HN